Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

ORKNEY ISLANDS COUNCIL BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Tuesday 10th January 1978.

UNIVERSITY OF LONDON BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Read a Second time and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions —

Mr. Speaker: The House has gained great advantage in recent days from brief supplementary questions and much briefer ministerial replies. I look forward to the same co-operation today.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Young Persons

Mr. Tim Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what proposals he has received from the European Commission relating to youth unemployment.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Grant): Preliminary proposals were contained in the Commission communication on youth employment which has been deposited in Parliament. The Commission has been asked by the Council of Ministers to produce a firm proposal for a new category of aid under the Social Fund which will promote employment, especially of young workers.

Mr. Smith: What is the Government's view of the Commission recommendation that young people who at present are at work but are threatened with unemployment should be given leave of absence to undertake some kind of vocational preparation?

Mr. Grant: As I said, these are preliminary proposals. We shall have to look very carefully at the Commission's proposals when they come back in a more substantive form. I do not think that I can answer the hon. Gentleman by saying more than that at this stage.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Will the Minister accept that, although youth unemployment is a desperately sad problem, recent research shows that it is men in middle life with two or more children who are not only unemployed more often but unemployed for a longer period and have infinitely less chance of eventually getting a job, and that this aspect of affairs must never be neglected for any other?

Mr. Grant: The hon. Lady has touched on another very important issue. I do not think anybody should undermine what she has said. But obviously the Question deals specifically with youth employment. This is a crucial issue throughout the Community and one on which I think the whole House wishes to see firm action taken.

Mr. Madel: What initiatives is the Minister taking to promote structural changes in the EEC such as a shorter working week or earlier retirement? Does he agree that, if we are to help young people, it cannot be done by one country on its own because of the competitive implications?

Mr. Grant: I agree with what the hon. Gentleman said. The possibility of a shorter working week, earlier retirement, and so on is, of course, under review by the Community as a whole as a consequence of the tripartite conference of Governments, trade unions and employers. One of the remits that flowed from that conference was to study this particular issue, and we shall be receiving a report on that.

Mrs. Bain: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what recent representations he has received about the problem of youth unemployment.

Mr. John Grant: The Government's concern with the level of youth unemployment is shared by many sections of the community, and my right hon. Friend frequently receives representations from individuals and organisations, including trade unions, employers' associations and youth organisations.

Mrs. Bain: Is the Minister aware that on 10th November in Scotland alone 9,435 youngsters had had no employment since leaving school? In view of this, can he give the House some information on the youth opportunities scheme, which has been spoken about but on which very little information has been given to the House? What funds have been allocated to the scheme, and when can youngsters expect to benefit from it.

Mr. Grant: I appreciate what the hon. Lady says about the gravity of the situation in Scotland, but the youth opportunities programme is weighted to take particular account of the levels of unemployment in an area. This should be of particular benefit to Scotland and to the area the hon. Member represents.

Mr. Craigen: In view of the figures that the Secretary of State gave us earlier about the increasing size of the working population, may I ask what consideration the Department of Employment has given to the report by the Equal Opportunities Commission on retirement ages, and in particular to lowering the age at which men retire, so that we might make additional employment available to young people?

Mr. Grant: My hon. Friend will be aware of the job release scheme which has some bearing on the point he raises. Active consideration is now being given to the very subjects he has mentioned.

Mr. Peter Walker: Is the Minister aware that, whereas youth unemployment generally under this Government has more than doubled, for young West Indians it has gone up almost sixfold? Would he agree that tackling that problem would do more to deal with the problems of the National Front than a propaganda television programme?

Mr. Grant: I would not agree that it will do more to tackle the problem. The way to deal with the National Front has been demonstrated very effectively

in the past week. I certainly would not detract from that approach. Having said that, of course the right hon. Gentleman is correct in the difficulty he highlights. We are taking particular action to deal with the problem, not least through the inner cities programme.

Unemployed Persons

Mr. Skinner: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what further steps he is taking to reduce unemployment; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Albert Booth): The Government's strategy for achieving full employment on a stable basis gives priority to the attack on inflation so that we can take full advantage of an expansion of world trade. The aim of the industrial strategy is to enable British industry to achieve its full share of world trade based on high productivity, high investment and well-chosen innovation.
In the meantime, I have introduced a range of special employment and training measures which have reduced unemployment significantly. I am now considering the future of the main employment measures.

Mr. Skinner: My right hon. Friend must not assume that fiddling with some of these short-term, high-cost schemes will be more than marginally effective. What is needed is a change of strategy. There must be an attempt to get down unemployment by acknowledging that technology has reduced the number of jobs. There must be a growth in the public sector. It was hinted at by the Prime Minister at Question Time last week that we must go for shorter hours and earlier retirement, especially in heavy industry. We must also allow wages to rise in order to increase purchasing power and thereby increase the number of jobs.

Mr. Booth: I accept that a great many of the considerations which my hon. Friend raises are absolutely crucial to overcoming unemployment and developing a good employment policy in the longer run. But one cannot discount a range of special measures when one sees that among the more successful of them there are possibilities of saving more than 100,000 jobs.

Mr. Penhaligon: Have the Government ever considered the possibility of introducing legislation making it compulsory to offer time off in lieu instead of overtime payments? If they did that, how many jobs do they think would be created?

Mr. Booth: I have considered a number of possibilities in that area, but I would far rather see employers and trade unions working out their own alternatives to the present high levels of overtime working and means of employing more people. If there were to be an agreement on a CBI-TUC basis about statutory limitations, I think that the whole House would want to consider it.

Mr. McNamara: Has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to the American measure on job tax credits, which was introduced by Congress this year? It seems to have the advantage of encouraging increases in small and medium-size firms, extra jobs, extra productivity and extra marketing.

Mr. Booth: That measure is one of almost bewildering complexity to a Minister studying it on this side of the Atlantic. If, fully grasping its significance and possibilities of application in this country, I see certain advantages in it, I shall bring the matter to the notice of my colleagues. At the moment, I cannot see any way of applying such a measure with advantage here.

Mr. Henderson: Is not the Secretary of State somewhat fed up at being made the fall guy for the Government's failure to reduce unemployment? Will he look again at the way in which incentives to industry are given? Many of these incentives are being given to highly capital-intensive projects which produce few jobs and, indeed, often lead to a contraction of jobs. Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is time to review this matter?

Mr. Booth: I do not see myself as a Government fall guy. I think that most hon. Members and most people concerned about employment throughout the country realise that employment measures effected by the Government are determined in part by Treasury decisions, trade and industry decisions and by the Department of Employment. I see it as my job and that of other Ministers in

the Department of Employment to ensure that the employment implications of the policies of all other Departments are taken into account, including those of the Department of Industry.

Mr. Hayhoe: Is it not a national scandal that there will be about 750,000 more people unemployed this Christmastime than at the first Christmastime when the Labour Government came to power? Is it not essential that more encouragement be given to small businesses, which hold out the best hope of providing extra jobs? Further, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, if subsidies are given to declining industries, the profitable and efficient industries will have to meet the bill and face resultant difficulty?

Mr. Booth: I certainly agree that encouragement to small firms and industries to increase the number of jobs is desirable. A number of such measures are being implemented now. When, however, the hon. Gentleman talks about the tragedy of the level of unemployment, I hope he will also acknowledge that many more people will be in employment this Christmas than there were in the less severe economic conditions of 1972. In fact, there will be over 400,000 more employed this Christmas season, which shows that some of the measures that we have introduced to sustain and increase employment have had a considerable effect.

Mr. Arnold: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest figures for unemployment; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Booth: At 10th November, 1,437,963 people were registered as unemployed in Great Britain, or 6·2 per cent. of all employees. This was the third successive month in which unemployment had fallen, mainly as a result of reductions in the unemployment of school leavers.

Mr. Arnold: Do not these figures continue to reveal an extremely worrying situation and suggest that there is absolutely no evidence to show that we are in any way moving from what remains a deep recession? How much credibility does the Secretary of State attach to suggestions that the underlying trend of unemployment may still be rising?

Mr. Booth: On the evidence now available, we cannot say that there is not a trend towards rising unemployment in a number of sectors of our economy. But we can say that the overall effect of measures now being applied has resulted in an increase in the numbers employed. The degree to which this high unemployment rate follows from the higher rate of school leaving now taking place is one of the main reasons why we have determined to double the provision for unemployed people between 16 and 18 years of age by next autumn.

Mr. Madden: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the temporary employment subsidy has done a great deal to reduce unemployment? Will he tell those in the European Commission who are opposed to this subsidy to take a running jump into the wine lake, and remind those in the Conservative Party who are opposed to the subsidy that it is safeguarding the jobs of at least 80,000 workers in the textile industry? What will happen to the subsidy in future? Will my right hon. Friend make a statement on this matter before Christmas, as this is most important in particular to the textile industry?

Mr. Booth: I cannot give my hon. Friend a promise to use exactly the terms that he used to our EEC partners, but I can assure him that we shall attempt to achieve exactly the same effect. I agree that the temporary employment subsidy, probably more than any other single measure that we have introduced, has reduced redundancies by about one-third of what they might otherwise have been.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Is the Secretary of State aware that, unless there is a successful outcome to the renegotiation of the Multi-Fibre Arrangement, tens of thousands of additional textile workers will be put out of work? Taking up the matter put to him by the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden), may I ask the right hon. Gentleman what alternatives to TES his Department is considering?

Mr. Booth: This is a good example of the extent to which employment is the joint responsibility of my Department and other Departments—in this case the Department of Trade. I am anxious about this matter and am working in co-

operation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade on the renegotiation of the MFA. In the meantime, irrespective of that, we are reviewing the operation of TES along with a number of other major measures which have been extended to March. I shall have to come back to the blouse with the outcome of that review.

Mr. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the current unemployment situation.

Mr. Booth: At 10th November, 1,437,963 people were registered as unemployed in Great Britain. The past three months have shown a fall in the number of unemployed, mainly as a result of school leavers finding jobs. The December figures will, I believe, show a further fall.

Mr. Henderson: Will the Secretary of State accept that that fall was not reflected in the Scottish figures? In a broader context, will he not agree that we simply cannot go on like this and that the figures he has given today for the number of unemployed and the number coming on to the labour market suggest that some new approach must be found? Does he not feel that it would be worth while for the Government to produce a Green Paper on the cost of the various options of early retirement, more training, shorter working weeks and so on and lead a national debate on the whole issue of where we are going in relation to employment?

Mr. Skinner: We do not need a debate. Just get it done.

Mr. Booth: Certainly the falls which have taken place over the past couple of months are not such as to reduce in any way the urgency of introducing the new measures on which we have already decided and of giving further consideration to the measures which, as I have indicated, are under review. I hope that it would not need a Green Paper or any other proposal on the part of the Government to bring about a debate on unemployment. My impression, gained in going round the country over the past year, is that a whole range of interested parties are engaging in such a debate and are coming forward with proposals as to how the situation might be improved.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the present high levels of unemployment are the result of the failure of the free market economy? Does he not accept that history teaches us that, if we are to find the jobs in the future, we cannot look to the free market economy to find them? Will the Government now take steps to produce a Socialist plan to provide employment? Does not my right hon. Friend also agree that capitalism is not any more attractive even if it is dressed up in a kilt or a tartan Plaid?

Mr. Booth: I had come to roughly the same conclusions as my hon. Friend before we entered the present recession, but in the course of the past 12 months I have been called upon by Members in all parts of this House for greater Government intervention. Therefore, whatever they say about the free market economy, I think that they must suspend some of their judgments for the period of this recession. I should like to point out to my hon. Friend that in Scotland the special measures have already aided 94,000 workers.

Mr. Hayhoe: Is it not a fact that unemployment has gone up not only in Scotland but also in the North-West, in the North and in Wales during the past month? Is not the underlying trend at the moment upwards rather than downwards? How can the right hon. Gentleman agree with his hon. Friends when the best hope of getting genuine job opportunities for the future lies within the private sector, and particularly the small business sector?

Mr. Booth: But the private sector is taking Government aid on an enormous scale, so presumably the private sector believes that the operation of a free market economy unfettered by any form of Government aid or intervention is not the right course for it to take at this juncture.

Grunwick Processing Laboratories Ltd.

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about recent developments between his Department and other parties involved in seeking to resolve the industrial dispute at Grunwick.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Harold Walker): The issue of trade union recognition which underlies this dispute will fall to be determined in the light of the House of Lords decision about the validity of the recommendation by the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service in March. Meaningful discussion of the other issues involved in this case have been made impossible by the attitude of the company.

Mr. Pavitt: Is it not a tragedy that this case has set back the whole concept of conciliation and across-the-table conferences? Is there any way in which we can in future avoid a confrontation when it is possible, by conciliation and arbitration, to have a peaceful settlement?

Mr. Walker: It would be wrong if this wholly deplorable incident were to detract attention from the success which ACAS has had in applying the statutory procedures for recognition. It has been successful in nearly 400 cases. On this specific issue, we want to hear the decision of the House of Lords and to consider whether, in the light of that, it may be necessary to look again at the statutory procedures.

Mr. Gorst: Is not the position that, Mr. Ward having accepted three out of the four recommendations of the Scar-man inquiry—in other words, all but the matter of reinstatement—the dispute is now effectively over from his point of view, and it now remains for the trade unions to recognise that fact?

Mr. Walker: I am bound to point out that Mr. Ward has refused to accept the crucially important first recommendation of the Scarman Committee.

Mr. Gorst: Why should he?

Mr. Walker: I am bound to say, too, that had Mr. Ward shown a greater respect and a greater recognition of the statutory procedures and institutions set up by this House, this unhappy sequence of events might never have occurred.

Wage Settlements

Mr. Marten: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is now the average wage settlement under phase 3.

Mr. Booth: As I have previously explained to the hon. Member, my Department monitors major settlements in terms of their compliance with the Government's pay policy, not their average level. The earnings outturn is reflected in due course, along with other factors, in the monthly index of average earnings. The latest figure, for September, shows a total rise of 1 per cent. since July.

Mr. Marten: How far does that answer coincide with the dualised statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that settlements should be at 6 per cent., giving rise to increases of 10 per cent.? Is not 10 per cent. now the norm for settlements?

Mr. Booth: My answer, if reflected throughout the year, would coincide almost exactly with the initial statement of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But it does not give us that sort of indication, because it covers the period of stage 2 as well as some post-stage 2 settlements.

Mr. Silvester: What machinery has the Secretary of State set up for testing the validity of productivity deals which are agreed under phase 3?

Mr. Booth: The productivity proposals which come forward along with certain wage claims are examined on a case-by-case basis to see whether they achieve the basic aim of being self-financing.

Alnwick and Amble

Mr. Beith: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what are the most recent unemployment figures for Alnwick and Amble, respectively.

Mr. John Grant: At 10th November, the numbers of people registered as unemployed in the Alnwick and Amble employment office areas were 675 and 330, respectively.

Mr. Beith: Is the Minister aware how difficult it is to tackle these high rates—14 per cent. in the case of Amble—when just down the road there is an area enjoying all the benefits of special development area status? Does he know, for example, that one local firm recently moved into the special development area in order to get those benefits? Will he

consider the possibility of extending the small firms employment subsidy to ordinary development areas, where it could be of great assistance?

Mr. Grant: I appreciate the problem. Of course, the area has development area status and there are some advantages to be gained from that. The question of special development area status is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry. The small firms employment subsidy is to be reviewed, and I shall certainly draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the hon. Gentleman's remarks.

National Work Force

Mr. George Rodgers: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is his estimate of the increase in the national work force that is anticipated over the next 15 years.

Mr. Booth: If present trends continue, there may be an increase of about 2.2 million in the labour force in Great Britain between 1977 and 1991, the latest year for which I have projections. The figure is subject to various uncertainties, in particular in respect of the number of married women likely to be seeking work; they are projected to increase by about 1·25 million over the period.

Mr. Rodgers: Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is a staggering figure and that over 2 million super-imposed on an unemployed labour force of 1½ million surely calls for a change of strategy? At this stage, should we not consider increased public spending, sabbatical years for ordinary working people, extended education opportunities and a whole range of options which should be introduced as soon as possible?

Mr. Booth: Certainly it is a very challenging figure, starting from the position of the present high level of unemployment. I agree that it carries with it an obligation to study all the factors which my hon. Friend mentioned. But I hope he agrees that this Government have not been reluctant to increase public expenditure as soon as we have the means of doing so. As soon as we have the income to enable us to do that successfully, I am certain that that will be one of the factors in the solution.

Mr. Bulmer: Will the Secretary of State confirm that he has asked sponsoring Departments to ensure that sector working parties provide projections of jobs that may be available by each activity, and that when he receives that information he will make it available to the House?

Mr. Booth: I can confirm that I have asked the sponsoring Ministers concerned to provide us with the information arising from sector working party studies. That will enable us to make an accurate manpower analysis of the outcome of carrying through the recommendations of those working parties. I shall certainly examine the hon. Gentleman's suggestion to see how the information can best be made available to the House.

Mr. John Garrett: Given these remarkable figures, on what side does my right hon. Friend find himself about the use of public revenue from North Sea oil and gas? Does he favour early repayment of debt and tax reliefs, or does he favour Government action directly to create new jobs in manufacturing industry?

Mr. Booth: Given these figures and the existing experience, I find myself only on one side of every argument about how to deploy available resources, and that is in favour of the way which will increase the number of jobs and reduce the number of unemployed.

Mr. Arnold: How are new jobs in manufacturing industry to be created?

Mr. Booth: In a number of ways. One is by supporting the investment programmes necessary to carry out the recommendations of the sector working parties. Another is an improvement in our own trade policies in the United Kingdom. Yet another is to use our influence as a country within the EEC and wider world forums to bring about an increase in the general level of world trade.

Recognition Agreements

Mr. Silvester: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received concerning the rôle of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service in recognition agreements.

Mr. Harold Walker: A number of individuals and organisations have written to me over the past few months about recognition and the rôle of ACAS. They have expressed a variety of views.

Mr. Silvester: Has not the time now come for the establishment of published criteria against which the desirability of recognition can be measured?

Mr. Walker: I am sure that ACAS works to criteria, which are referred to in the statute and which take into account such factors as the effectiveness of the organisation seeking recognition and the effect that that recognition might have on industrial relations in the company concerned.

Mr. Loyden: Is my hon. Friend satisfied with the work of ACAS? For instance, is he aware of the problem at the Leyland factory at Speke, where men have now been laid off for a considerable number of weeks and where no attempt has apparently been made by management to resolve the problems? Will my hon. Friend consider seeing whether ACAS can assist?

Mr. Walker: If I understand the position correctly, the problem to which my hon. Friend referred was not one of recognition, which is what the Question specifically refers to. In general, I am indeed satisfied with the working of ACAS. Its services are available at the request of the parties in that district.

Job Creation (Ealing)

Mr. Molloy: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what progress has been made and what projects are being examined in relation to job creation schemes in the London borough of Ealing.

Mr. John Grant: I am informed by the Manpower Services Commission that to date grants totalling £90,721 have been allocated under the job creation programme to four projects in the London borough of Ealing, creating 41 temporary jobs. A further application for a project to create six jobs is currently under consideration.

Mr. Molloy: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his reply. Will he please confirm that the making of submissions for job creation schemes is not limited to


local authorities, trade unions and employers' organisations but that anyone who has any ideas may make submissions to the Department? Can he also say whether he is having discussions with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry about helping to attract industry to the London borough of Ealing?

Mr. Grant: On my hon. Friend's first point, there is no restriction concerning applications. Indeed, I know that the Manpower Services Commission would welcome further applications from organisations within the London borough of Ealing for job creation projects. I shall certainly raise my hon. Friend's further point with my right hon. Friend.

Homeworkers

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what estimates are available for the numbers employed as homeworkers and their rates of pay; what additional steps he is taking to assist those workers; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. John Grant: No reliable estimates are available. Homeworkers within the scope of a wages council must receive not less than the statutory minimum rate laid down by the council. I am awaiting the report of ACAS on two wages councils in which substantial homeworking is found. In the light of that, the Government will consider what further steps should be taken.

Mr. Roberts: Is my hon. Friend aware that one recent survey suggested that there were up to half a million people at one time involved in homeworking and that about four-fifths of these were paid less than 30p an hour? In view of the scale of exploitation in this sector, could he not at least give the House some idea of the Government's thinking on steps which could be taken in this direction?

Mr. Grant: It would be wrong for me to seek to pre-empt the inquiries being carried out by ACAS, but, of course, apart from the ACAS references, there is the question of registration. The Health and Safety Executive has published a consultation document, has received comments on it and, I understand, is likely to issue revised proposals in the near future. This should be helpful in identifying homeworkers and their employers.

I think that we should await both the ACAS reports and the further initiative from the Health and Safety Executive.

Manual Workers (Wage)

Mr. MacKay: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the average weekly wage for manual workers; and if he is satisfied with the method of calculation of this average.

Mr. Harold Walker: The latest New Earnings Survey shows that at April 1977 the average earnings of manual workers, working full time, who were aged 18 and over and whose pay was not affected by absence, was £70 for males, £43·70 for females and £65·80 for males and females combined. I am satisfied with the method of calculation.

Mr. MacKay: Is the Minister aware that statistics can mean all things to all men and that some employers would like to know whether these statistics include overtime? Is he also aware that the statistics have been causing considerable problems in wage negotiations and have led to inflationary wage claims?

Mr. Walker: The figures are of average weekly earnings.

Mr. Rooker: Will my hon. Friend confirm that between two-thirds and three-quarters of manual workers receive less than the average? When the Chancellor of the Exchequer quotes average wages in talking about tax rebates it means nothing to the rest of the population because the majority of people earn less than the average, if only because the salaries of company chairmen on £1,000 a week are included in the calculation of the average.

Mr. Walker: The figures I have given to the House are of the earnings of manual workers. I am sure my hon. Friend will not expect me to answer questions about tax, but I confirm his assumption that rather more than half receive less than the average.

European Community

Mr. Dykes: asked the Secretary of State for Employment when he next plans to visit Brussels to meet his opposite numbers in the other EEC member States.

Mr. John Grant: My right hon. Friend has no plans at present to visit Brussels.


I expect to attend when the Council of Ministers (Social Affairs) and the Standing Committee on Employment next meet, but no dates have yet been fixed.

Mr. Dykes: I am sorry that the Secretary of State is not going to Brussels soon. The hon. Gentleman referred just now to building up world trade in order to try to counteract unemployment in the Western world. Would it not be a good idea for the Secretary of State when he next goes to a social affairs meeting, to discuss the Social Fund, its inadequate size and the need to build it up, so that more money can be given to the United Kingdom by way of anti-unemployment assistance and, specifically, aid for young unemployed people and vocational training?

Mr. Grant: I might say that my right hon. Friend is going to Paris this week for the OECD discussions, and he will have an opportunity there to talk to his colleagues from other countries. The whole matter is in safe hands, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I have suggested already that there should be an increase in the resources of the Social Fund for the purposes he has outlined.

Mr. Gould: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the European Commission is currently investigating the temporary employment subsidy because it believes that it is contrary to the rules of fair competition under the Treaty of Rome? Does he agree that, if that subsidy were to be struck down by the Commission, it would be a sad day for working people in this country because it is by far the most effective form of job protection produced by this Government?

Mr. Grant: My right hon. Friend has already answered this question. However, informal discussions are going on. I think that both my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister have made very clear the importance which they place upon the temporary employment subsidy. If any action were taken which undermined the effectiveness or the basic purpose of that subsidy, we should be gravely concerned. I hope that that will not arise.

Mexborough and Wombwell

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: asked the Secretary of State for Employment how

many men, women, and youths were registered as unemployed at the Mex-borough and Wombwell employment exchanges, respectively, at the latest available date; and how these figures compare with those in the years 1975 and 1976.

Mr. John Grant: At 10th November, 1,318 males and 667 females in the Mexborough area and 523 males and 241 females in the Wombwell area were registered as unemployed. The corresponding figures for November 1975 were 1,139 males and 524 females at Mexborough, and 491 males and 126 females at Wombwell. Information for November 1976 is not available because of industrial action by some staff in the Department of Employment group. Separate figures are not available for youths.

Mr. Wainwright: Does not my hon. Friend agree that those figures prove that there is a tremendous shortage of suitable jobs in this part of South Yorkshire? Will he have some serious discussions with the Secretary of State for Industry to ensure that more jobs come into the area? Will he also have discussions with the Secretary of State for the Environment to try to persuade him to give his blessing to the South Yorkshire Navigation scheme, which is bound to bring jobs and activity to this part of South Yorkshire?

Mr. Grant: I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friends to my hon. Friend's remarks.

Minimum Wage (Contravention)

Mrs. Wise: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will direct the Wages Inspectorate to alter present policy of not prosecuting employers who break the law by paying workers less than the statutory minimum wage fixed by wages councils, in the light of the widespread flouting of the law which has been revealed by the Inspectorate and the need to protect workers against this offence.

Mr. John Grant: Seven prosecutions have taken place this year and others are in the course of preparation. I believe that the present policy of not prosecuting first offenders unless the offence is flagrant, but always considering prosecution in the case of other offenders, is right.

Mrs. Wise: Does my hon. Friend accept that the policy of not prosecuting first offenders who underpay their workers contrasts strangely with the very severe prosecution policy of the Secretary of State for Social Services in the case of people who overclaim social security? Does he also accept that it contrasts strangely with the very vigorous efforts made by the Government to prevent employers overpaying, as they think, on non-statutory wages policy? Why is this law not vigorously enforced?

Mr. Grant: I shall not go into comparisons. I believe that the policy we are pursuing in terms of the Wages Inspectorate is the correct one. On the final point my hon. Friend raised, there is a 10 per cent. guideline and there is no special provision within that guideline for the low paid. What we shall do in the future is another question. I have expresed my views fairly clearly. Perhaps my hon. Friend will share them in due course.

Mr. Prior: Are not the Government in an even bigger muddle than usual? They prosecute people for paying too little and penalise people for paying too much. What are they trying to do?

Mr. Grant: The right hon. Gentleman, as he does most of the time on these matters, has lost his way and does not understand the situation. We would like to know when he will clarify the catalogue of contradictions that forms the Opposition's policy and, in particular, when the Leader of the Opposition will clarify their policy.

Mr. Greville Janner: Does not my hon. Friend accept that there is genuine worry over the matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West (Mrs. Wise) and also over the failure to prosecute those who do not employ their quota of disabled people? Will he also accept that prosecution on its own is useless, as has been shown under the provisions of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act, because the courts will not impose severe penalties on those who are convicted?

Mr. Grant: I agree with the last point that my hon. and learned Friend has made. It is up to the courts to take a tougher line in many of those cases. On the matter of the disabled quota, we have

introduced a positive policy which is based primarily on persuasion, not coercion. We must give that policy an opportunity to work through before we look at other methods.

Dismissed Employees

Mr. Gow: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what arrangements are made by his Department for monitoring cases where employees are dismissed for refusing to join a trade union; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Harold Walker: No special arrangements are made by my Department for monitoring such cases.

Mr. Gow: Ought there not to be such procedures? Are not the Government deeply concerned about occasions when people who have given a lifetime of service to an industry are dismissed without compensation? Is not monitoring required so that the Government may judge the effect of their own legislation?

Mr. Walker: If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that the Government ought to impose a statutory obligation upon employers, I am not sure whether that would find sympathy in any part of the House. As I have explained to the hon. Gentleman before, we do not impose such obligations upon employers. I understand the latter point he has raised, and I would make a plea for closed shops to be operated in the tolerant and flexible way they were operated before the Industrial Relations Act made this such a contentious issue.

Mr. Weetch: Would my hon. Friend be prepared to monitor cases in the Post Office, where people can be dismissed without pay, in circumstances in which they find it difficult to claim unemployment benefit, because of unsubstantiated allegations about passing documents to third persons without any clearance—documents that are of no security significance at all?

Mr. Walker: I have no knowledge of the circumstances to which my hon. Friend refers, but if he will send details to me or to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry we shall look carefully into the matter.

Mr. Tebbit: Is the Minister aware that we can understand his eagerness to


shuffle this matter on to the employers, but does he not agree that the Government are employers? What is the Government's policy towards dismissing people who commit the unforgiveable sin of failing to join, or being excluded from, a trade union?

Mr. Walker: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that the Government should adopt double standards, as practised by some—one standard for people in the public sector and another for those in the private sector. We are not prepared to do that. I remind the hon. Gentleman, in case he has overlooked it, that the Church of England has come to share the view of the Government on the issue of the closed shop.

Industrial Strategy

Mr. Tim Renton: asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he is satisfied that unemployment in the United Kingdom will fall during 1978 as a result of the published details of the Government's industrial strategy.

Mr. John Grant: No estimates of the overall effects on employment of the industrial strategy have yet been produced or published. Sector working parties are considering the employment implications in their own sectors, and a report will be made to the National Economic Development Council shortly.

Mr. Renton: My Question referred specifically to published details of the Government's industrial strategy, not to vague aspirations for the future. Will the Minister tell us precisely what aspect of the Government's industrial strategy in the past year has led to specific job creation?

Mr. Grant: I do not think I can answer the Question in those terms. None the less, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman—I hope that his view is shared by other Opposition Members—for pointing out that we require a more planned economy.

Oral Answers to Questions — TUC

Mr. Ioan Evans: asked the Prime Minister when he next plans to meet the TUC.

The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): I refer my hon. Friend to

the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Arnold) on 8th November.

Mr. Evans: Has my right hon. Friend read the Richard Dimbleby lecture, delivered by Jack Jones, on the human face of labour? Does he agree that the most important pact that the Government have is with the trade unions? Will he, therefore, seek to transform the social contract into a Socialist contract so that the workers who have been sacrificed in recent years can reap the benefits in the years ahead?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I have read a summary of that lecture. I thought that it was well worth while and I congratulate Mr. Jones on what he said. Of course, the foundation of any Government's success in this country—and, indeed, in other countries—is a good working relationship with the trade union movement. As I move among Prime Ministers and others from other countries, I find that the relationship established in this country is in some cases a source of envy to them.

Mrs. Thatcher: Will the Prime Minister take the opportunity to remind the TUC that the pay in the pocket of the average worker this Christmas will buy less than at any Christmas since 1969 and that that is the practical result of Socialism?

The Prime Minister: I shall check on the right hon. Lady's figures, because if, as I suspect, they come from the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) I should not accept them without double checking.
As regards the general position, there has not been any attempt on the part of responsible people to deny that the result of the increases in oil prices, among other factors, meant a lowering of the standard of life of people in this and other countries. I am glad to say we are now recovering from that situation. The tax remissions that the Chancellor was able to give in the autumn and in the summer are helping. If we get reasonable settlements on pay during the next 12 months, there can be further tax remissions, and those, together with the fact that we are overcoming inflation, will result in a real and substantial increase in the standard of life of the people of this country in 1978.

Mr. Norman Atkinson: Will the Prime Minister reiterate the last statement that he has just made? Will he clear up any ambiguity that may exist among TUC people in the sense that he is now saying that there is no necessity for any worker to take a further reduction in his living standards this year? Indeed, he should go beyond that because, according to my right hon. Friend, workers can expect an increase in their living standards as we move towards the end of this financial year.

The Prime Minister: This will be a real increase. I gladly reiterate it if my hon. Friend did not comprehend what I was saying. A moderate increase in earnings, coupled with a reduction in taxation—which is possible next spring—together with the fact that we are overcoming inflation, which is expected to be in single figures next year, will lead to a substantial improvement in the standard of life for the first time for some years. That is worth working for. That is why I reiterate the necessity for moderate increases in earnings, not fantastic increases of 20 per cent. and 30 per cent. Such increases would mean that inflation would go up, that we could not make tax cuts and that there would be a general reduction rather than an improvement in standards.

Mr. Baker: Before the Prime Minister sees the TUC, will he have a word with the Secretary of State for Energy, who said last night that what Britain needs even more than more Labour Government is more Socialism? Does the Prime Minister agree with that sentiment, which was so well cheered from below the Gangway?

The Prime Minister: There are no differences between the Secretary of State for Energy and myself.

Mr. Pardoe: Will the Prime Minister accept that never mind increases in earnings of 20 per cent. or 30 per cent., the current spate of forecasts in the private sector is that earnings will average an increase of 17 per cent. during the period of the Government's guidelines? Does the Prime Minister recognise that these forecasts, coupled with leaks from the Treasury that its computer confirms that figure, are likely to be self-fulfilling? What will the Prime Minister do to intro-

duce a pay policy which will stop earnings rising at 17 per cent. over the 12 months of this pay policy?

The Prime Minister: The only point on which I agree with the hon. Gentleman is that this ridiculous kind of forecasting—

Mr. Skinner: Slap him down.

The Prime Minister: —which seems to be the biggest growth industry in this country, tends to become self-fulfilling. I wish that we could have far fewer forecasts and more people concentrating on what is actually happening.

Oral Answers to Questions — WEST DRAYTON

Mr. Trotter: asked the Prime Minister whether he will pay a visit to West Drayton.

The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so.

Mr. Trotter: Will the Prime Minister visit RAF West Drayton and talk to the hundreds of Service men there who have to take part-time jobs wrapping chocolates to keep their wives and families? Will he explain to them why the rates of Service pay have fallen so far behind those for comparable jobs, or is he content that Service men should be forced to be chocolate-box soldiers?

The Prime Minister: We all want Service men to be properly paid, and it will be for the Armed Forces Pay Review Body to come forward with appropriate proposals next spring.
This practice of doing second jobs has, I understand, operated for some time and has been contained in Queen's Regulations for many years. I believe that in an area such as West Drayton it is a practice that has gone on for a long time. However, the hon. Gentleman will no doubt agree that it is better to have two jobs than to have none at all, which is what would happen as a result of his vote last night in the shipbuilding debate.

Mr. Ashley: On this question of part-time jobs, does the Prime Minister agree that far too many hon. Members, especially Tory Members, have too many part-time jobs, and that membership of the House is a full-time job for every Member of Parliament?

The Prime Minister: I believe that political moonlighting is a tradition of the House. Some occupations are more valuable and socially useful than others. As far as the Opposition are concerned, I have a feeling—

Mr. Ridley: "Hodge".

The Prime Minister: I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman is referring to. If he has any smear to make, after his Watergate smear, no doubt he will get to his feet and make it.

Mr. Shersby: Is the Prime Minister aware that my constituents in West Dray, ton who serve Her Majesty in the Royal Air Force are totally disillusioned with the attitude of the Government and their refusal to restore comparability of Service pay with outside pay, and, moreover, that they are utterly dismayed by the virtual total absence of the Labour Party from the House of Commons last Friday when the subject of Forces pay was debated? Is the Prime Minister aware that if he had planned to visit West Drayton he would have received a very hot reception indeed? Will he now explain to the House when he proposes to restore comparability?

The Prime Minister: The Armed Forces need to be properly remunerated, as do the police, firemen, and all other public services. However, they are part of the community, and the burdens that are borne by the community cannot be exempted in their case.
The job of the House of Commons, as I hope all hon. Members agree, is to try to secure fair play for the Armed Forces, but that does not exempt them from the burdens which others have to carry. Everyone understands, except the Opposition in their more irresponsible moments—certainly the public understands—that we are succeeding in what we are doing. That is why we retain the support of the public.

Mr. Bryan Davies: Given that the forecasting ability of the Treasury computer is held in high regard only by the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe), could it be put to better use in totting up the demands of the Conservatives for increases in public expenditure and presenting the nation with an accurate bill on that account?

The Prime Minister: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for his suggestion. I am now compiling a list, which I hope to produce at an appropriate moment.

Sir Ian Gilmour: Will the Prime Minister clarify the position of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body? Is he aware that on Friday the Minister of State, Ministry of Defence admitted that it was not an independent body? In a rare moment of frankness, the hon. Gentleman stated:
It is recommended to make recommendations."—[Official Report, 9th December 1977; Vol. 940, c. 1947.]
Will the Prime Minister therefore, stop trying to hide behind the skirts of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body and say that what the Government intend to do?

The Prime Minister: With respect, that remark hardly seems up to the right hon. Gentleman's usual standard. He knows the functions of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body. It takes evidence and makes recommendations to the Government, who then reach conclusions. That procedure has been followed for some years. It was established as a result of all-party agreement, and we shall continue to follow it.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)

Mr. Viggers: asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 13th December 1977.

The Prime Minister: This morning, President Giscard and I completed our discussions at Chequers which began yesterday. I will, with permission, make a statement about this at the end of Question Time. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be holding further meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. This evening, I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.

Mr. Viggers: As part of his official duties this afternoon, will the Prime Minister clarify the voluntary pay code? Since the Scottish Council of the Labour Party has rejected the 10 per cent. wage guidelines out of hand, how will he persuade it to volunteer anything?

The Prime Minister: I do not suppose I shall.

Mr. Ron Thomas: I wonder whether, in the midst of a very busy day, my right hon. Friend will spare a moment to consider the decision which was recently made not to allow Back Benchers to discuss the Supplementary Estimates on defence. We had to allow another £400-odd million to go through on the nod. May I appeal to my right hon. Friend to ensure that Back Benchers are not deprived of the opportunity to discuss Supplementary Estimates in future years?

The Prime Minister: In consultation with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, I shall look into the matter. How the House can control expenditure has been a difficult issue for as long as I have been here. Control may have slipped, in which case we should try to restore it. However, when matters of public expenditure arise, I feel that it is for the House to choose the subjects it debates. It would have been possible yesterday—although I realise that it was appropriate to debate a more interesting subject—for the House to discuss the matter.

Mr. Raison: Is the Prime Minister aware that under the Scotland Bill it would be possible for the Scottish Assembly to pay its servants substantially more than the United Kingdom Government were paying their servants? Does the Prime Minister think that that would make for a manageable incomes policy?

The Prime Minister: I have always understood that such issues were raised when a Bill was in Committee, not at Question Time.

Mr. Stan Crowther: Will my right hon. Friend be able to find time to congratulate the men who work on E furnace in the Templeborough melting shop in my constituency, who last week produced steel at what would be an averaae annual rate [interruption.]—hon. Members should try it—of 74·2 tonnes an hour, which is almost certainly a world record and far in advance of the latest Japanese figures? Is not my right hon. Friend as tired as I am of hearing from the Opposition how marvellous the Japanese are? Does he not agree that our steel workers are as good as the best in the world, given the opportunity?

The Prime Minister: As the Christmas spirit seems to be spreading rather ra-

pidly, I cannot think of a better commercial on which to congratulate my hon. Friend. I hope that the whole House will join in congratulating the steel workers on the record that they have set up. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] If it will help, I shall be glad to send them a Christmas card.

PRESIDENT OF FRANCE (TALKS)

The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement about the talks I have had yesterday and today with the President of the French Republic, M. Valery Giscard d'Estaing.
The objective of these annual meetings is to develop the habit of regular but informal consultation between British and French Ministers so that this becomes the most natural way of exchanging views on matters of long-term importance to both countries. On this occasion, I was glad to be able to welcome the President to Chequers together with the French Prime Minister, M. Barre, and their colleagues the Ministers of Foreign Affairs and of Defence. On the British side, my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, the Secretary of State for Defence, the Secretary of State for Trade, and the Minister of State for Industry took part in our discussions The talks took place in a friendly atmosphere and revealed a broad similarity of approach to the main issues of the day.
As I reported to the House on 7th December, current questions affecting the European Community were fully discussed at last week's meeting of the European Council. At Chequers, the President and I discussed the longer-term development of the Community. We found that our views were similar. We discussed the important and pressing question of the Community's fisheries policy, on which the Commission's proposals will provide the basis for a further meeting of the Fisheries Council next month.
We resumed our discussions on the world economic situation and were in agreement that it is essential for the OECD and the Community to achieve their growth targets next year if unemployment is not to rise still higher. Our own


fight against inflation, which is making good progress, needs the help of more expansionary policies in the strongest economies. We discussed the problems arising from the surpluses accumulated by the OPEC countries and by Japan.
In a thorough review of our bilateral relations, we agreed to establish a Committee for Industrial Co-operation, drawn from senior officials of the two countries, which will identify new areas of industrial co-operation between us. These will include offshore oil technology, technology that is peripheral to the computer industry, the paper industry and the machine tool industry, among others. We welcomed the contacts already established between British Leyland and Renault on posible co-operation between these companies which, while leaving the initiative to them, we support and encourage.
We discussed a proposal for a 2,000 megawatt cross-Channel electricity cable link. We noted that the generating authorities in our two countries are in negotiation towards an agreement and expressed our support for this. We reviewed prospects for co-operation in the supply of defence equipment, and welcomed the significant progress that is being made. We exchanged views on possible new projects in the field of civil aviation. We agreed that quick decisions were needed on the various options which had opened up and that these matters should be decided on the basis of the commercial and market factors involved.
We agreed that there will be annual meetings in future between senior officials of our countries who are concerned with economic management. In a wider framework, we agreed to encourage the Franco-British Council to organise annual meetings, such as we already have with the Federal Republic of Germany and other countries, between leading British and French politicians, industrialists, trade unionists and others to discuss matters of common concern.
We had a very thorough and useful exchange of views on the international situation, devoting particular attention to the prospects for a Middle East settlement and to Africa, on which our thinking was very close. We agreed to deepen consultation between us on African problems.
This latest meeting has confirmed once again the value of these exchanges as a positive and constructive basis on which to build Franco-British friendship.

Mrs. Thatcher: May I put three points to the Prime Minister? First, does the Prime Minister agree that in these days we are not short of Summits, of committees of co-operation or of Summit statements, particularly about the need for extra growth, and that they are all phrased in the same terms? The only thing that we are short of is results from the Summits. It is ironic that this statement on the need for industrial growth comes on a day when industrial production is once again down. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that any practical proposals for growth have ever emerged from these Summit meetings?
Secondly, in view of our need fox greater agricultural production, did the Prime Minister discuss with the President the need to devalue the green currencies? Thirdly, did he tell the President that it is his intention to increase his commitment to defence expenditure in accordance with our own commitment to our other allies?

The Prime Minister: It is true, I think, that there are far more international meetings than there ever have been and that sometimes the results are not commensurate with the effort which has been put in. Nevertheless, there are problems here of interdependence which have not been solved and cannot be solved by any one country. I know that I speak for the President of France, as I speak for myself, when I say that this exchange of views is of very great value, and I do not think that the right hon. Lady is doing justice to these exchanges by the approach that she takes.
Certainly the matters of the cross-Channel electricity link, the supply of defence equipment, and the examination of new fields for co-operation in the industrial areas are of value. What happens, as the right hon. Lady may discover one day, is that one can supply a political impetus. When issues are being discussed by officials—no doubt very well—or by industries, it sometimes needs Heads of Government and appropriate Ministers to get together in order to give the real push. That is the value of it, not that any great results come out


of any one meeting. I should like to cut down on the number of meetings that I attend in this way, but I do not think that it would be of value to this country if we were to cut off these Summits. Therefore, I do not agree with the right hon. Lady about that.
We did not discuss the question whether we should devalue the green pound. All the green currencies in Europe are capable of adjustment and it is for Governments to decide when they do so. Our Government have not decided not to devalue. It would be a question how we measure the relative importance of the consumer and the return to farmers in this sphere.
We did not discuss our contributions in the area of defence, at least not in financial terms. We discussed possible projects on which we could work together in the sphere both of a possible replacement for some existing helicopters and, indeed, of some other armaments.

Mr. Conlan: Did my right hon. Friend take the opportunity of discussing the problems associated with the Concorde landing rights, and did he give the opportunity to the French Government to associate with the British Government to ensure that there will be more co-ordination than there has been in the past to ensure that Concorde can land in a greater number of places than is seemingly possible at the moment?

The Prime Minister: We discussed this briefly, but the problem of the landing rights at Singapore is basically a matter, I think, with which we ourselves have to deal, and I did not invite the French President to assist on that matter. However, there is co-operation whenever we need to work together.

Mr. Cyril Smith: Did the Prime Minister have any discussion on the problems of the British textile industry, particularly in relation to any objections that France or any other Common Market Member may have to an extension of the temporary employment subsidy? If he did have such discussions, what form did they take and can he give us any indication whether the Government will agree to any such extension?

The Prime Minister: We discussed this matter briefly, particularly in relation to the negotiations that the Community has

been carrying on. I did not raise with the French President the question of the temporary employment subsidy, nor he with me. Obviously this has to be the subject of an early decision, but I cannot imagine any circumstances in which either it will not continue or there will not be a replacement of it when the present scheme runs out—unless, of course, we have the dire misfortune of the return of a Conservative Government, in which case all these schemes will be washed out and unemployment will rise to 3 million.

Mr. Amery: Did the Prime Minister discuss with the President how we could exploit the 12-year lead we have over United States technology in supersonic civil flight?

The Prime Minister: We touched on this matter, but naturally we did not reach any conclusions about it. This is a matter which will come increasingly under discussion. I express only the personal view to the right hon. Gentleman that he should not expect it to be Government policy at this stage. I do not think another Anglo-French project could possibly succeed in view of the resources that would be required; it would have to be on a broader scale. But this is not a matter on which the Government have reached a conclusion.

Mr. Ward: I welcome what my right hon. Friend has said about the need for an electricity link with France. Will he say whether the French raised the question of a gas pipeline to take advantage of Britain's lead in this area?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir, we did not discuss that, but we discussed the differences that arise in our economies because of the great good fortune that this country has with its massive reserves of coal and the oil discoveries that have been made, as well as, of course, the natural gas. I think that the French Government wish that they were in the same position. They, of course, are having to go nuclear much earlier than we are because of their shortage.

Mr. Peter Walker: Is the Prime Minister aware that all the areas of industrial collaboration that he indentified are areas in which collaboration probably should be on a wider scale than merely an Anglo-French basis? For example, West Germany has a considerable interest.


What action is the right hon. Gentleman taking about that?

The Prime Minister: Particularly in relation to defence, we covered this aspect of the matter, and the European Programme Group, which the right hon. Gentleman may know about, is considering possible defence collaboration in the manufacture and development of particular projects on an Anglo-French-German basis. However, these were only bilateral talks between us.
On the other hand, I think that the President of France feels—and, certainly, I feel—that we share a number of problems in various areas. These are becoming increasingly known to us, and, though obviously they are also linked with Germany, perhaps we have a closer link with France. This is particularly true of textiles, for example. It is true also, I think in shipbuilding, where we have problems, in steel, and in the attitude towards the Japanese surplus. All of these are very important issues where I think an Anglo-French initiative can be and should be built—but not to the exclusion of any of our partners.

Mr. Heffer: In discussing the question of our oil and coal reserves, did my right hon. Friend stress the essential unity of the United Kingdom, particularly in view of the fact that the President of France entertained the so-called President of the Quebec Province of Canada and appeared to support independence? In view of the attitude being developed by the Scottish nationalists in relation to Scotland, this could have a significance for this country.

The Prime Minister: I discussed the question of devolution with the President and told him that I thought the best way to preserve the independence and unity of the United Kingdom was for the devolution Bill to go through in the form that, broadly, it is in now—and I believe that this would take a lot of poison out of the propaganda that is being used, in Scotland in particular.

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: Did the Prime Minister discuss with the President of France the Philistine and even barbarous policy followed by the French Government towards the culture and language

Of Brittany, which is now leading to the destruction of an ancient language?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Mr. James Johnson: In view of what the Prime Minister said about M. Giscard d'Estaing and fishing policy, is he aware that in the eyes of our fishing industry the French are a bête noire? Did they discuss the tough and patriotic line taken by the Secretary of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food? If so, did M. Giscard d'Estaing say anything about the 50-mile exclusive limit?

The Prime Minister: I think that it would be true to say that there would not be normal relations with France unless there was some friction between fishermen off the South-West coast and French fishermen, who claim ancient and historic rights to fish there. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary pointed out—and I supported him in this—that because of the need to preserve our fishing stocks there is more identity of interest between the French and ourselves, if we choose to exercise it, than on the surface there might seem to be. We hoped that the French would join us in defending these coastal rights that we have put forward.

Mr. Henderson: Did the Prime Minister find any movement in the French view towards the position that our fishermen have taken, namely that we must have exclusive control over territorial limits if we are to have conservation in the future? Did the French President indicate that when he visits Edinburgh he intends to say "Vive l'Ecosse libre"?

The Prime Minister: I cannot compete in this linguistic exercise. I cannot say that the French President made any alteration in the French approach to this problem. It is an important issue to him because of unemployment among French fishermen and he has his interests to look after. The question is whether we can identify a joint interest here in the preservation of our coastal areas. I think that we can.

Mr. Marten: As a great believer in Franco-United Kingdom co-operation rather than British-French co-operation, may I ask whether the accord which seems to have stemmed from this meeting extended to a joint belief that no extra


powers should be given to the directly-elected Assembly, if there is one? Do France and Britain see eye to eye on that point?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that I want to go any further than the phrase that I used—namely that we found that our views were similar.

Mr. Skinner: In view of the Leader of the Opposition's scathing remarks about this summitry—I am sure that the Prime Minister knows that I am a sceptic about these matters—does my right hon. Friend think that the Leader of the Opposition's worldwide summitry has tended to establish her as more of an international statesman, taking into account what she has had to say this afternoon and that she has travelled to Australia, Yugoslavia, Italy, China and a score of other places? On the specific matter of direct elections, is the Prime Minister saying that both he and Giscard d'Estaing are agreed on the phrase that he used, namely that to delay for another year does not really matter?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir, not on that point. I am sure that the French President would much prefer us to come to a conclusion so that elections could be held in 1978.
As for world travel, it is not for me to comment on anyone else's travels, by any means of locomotion. But I am bound to say, having read the debate yesterday, that it seems to me that we have a new test to apply to international trade, namely that all trade with Communist countries is bad unless the Leader of the Opposition has visited them.

Mr. Forman: In reviewing the intractable problems of the world economic situation with the French President, was there any meeting of minds between Her Majesty's Government and the French Government on the vital importance of Britain and France using their influence jointly in gatherings such as GATT and elsewhere to increase the trade potential for our exports to developing countries and also to improve the access for their exports to our countries?

The Prime Minister: That is a very important and interesting question. I cannot say that we spent time on it in the discussions yesterday, but it is cer-

tainly a matter that our officials could take up and I shall be glad to bring it to their attention.

Mr. Faulds: Did my right hon. Friend discuss the Middle East with the French President, more particularly in view of the fact that the French Government make a more realistic appraisal of their interests in that part of the world—an example which we might well follow?

The Prime Minister: Yes. We discussed this subject and we each put forward our own views about it. As to whose position is more realistic I would not care to say, except that I am glad to be able to report that I keep in constant contact with the leaders both of the Arab countries and of Israel. I had a telephone conversation yesterday with Mr. Begin—

Mr. James Lamond: Reverse charge?

The Prime Minister: It really would take a Scot to think of that. I am also keeping in close communication with the Arab leaders on these 'natters and shall continue to do so.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Another long statement is to follow. I shall take two more speakers from each side. Mr. Ian Lloyd.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: Since this important conference concentrated on the question of industrial growth, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he and the President had before them the interesting report by the Economic and Social Committee of the Commission on the subject of industrial growth? Did he or the President refer to the criteria set out in that report, and did the Prime Minister explain to the President why not one of those criteria was satisfied by the Polish shipbuilding deal?

The Prime Minister: The House gave its answer on the last part of that question very forcefully last night. The speeches led me to the conclusion that the Opposition were a little unwise to raise the question.
As for industrial co-operation, we discussed what bilateral approaches could be made between British and French industry, except in the defence sector at which, as I said, we looked in a wider


context. Although we had at the back of our minds the document referred to by the hon. Gentleman, we did not discuss that paper in particular.

Mr. Hayman: In view of the grave problems of the civil aircraft industry in France and here, can my right hon. Friend tell the House when the urgent decisions on new projects, to which he has referred, are likely to be made?

The Prime Minister: Both the President and I will ask our respective industries to work hard at this subject and to reach a conclusion as quickly as possible. I know that that answer is not very definite. We had in mind that the industry should be able to evaluate the position by late spring, and that both Governments could then reach a conclusion. I repeat, however, that this issue must be approached on a commercial basis.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: In an earlier reply the Prime Minister seemed to rule out the possibility of any future versions of Concorde. Will he tell us what discussions he had about the existing Concorde production line and whether there is any prospect of further aircraft being ordered?

The Prime Minister: We did not discuss that matter, but I cannot hold out any hope that there will be any extension of the existing line. There are no orders for further numbers of Concorde.

Mr. John Garrett: Did my right hon. Friend discuss with the French President the superior rate of economic growth in France, which has obtained for some years past, and the extent to which that has been due to interventionist national planning and public ownership of the financial institutions? Did my right hon. Friend feel that we had anything to learn from the French experience?

The Prime Minister: I think that both of us have something to learn from each other. But in the eyes of the major parties in France there is clearly not the same ideological objection to public enterprise as exists in the mind of the Conservative Party here. Therefore, the French have been able to approach the issue on a less dogmatic basis than seems possible here. There is certainly a great

deal of intervention by the French Government in their industry, as is well known.
The French will not have such fast economic growth next year as they would like. We hope that our rate of growth will be much faster as a result of the fact that we have now overcome inflation. Indeed, our rate of growth next year might even approach that of the French.

TEACHER TRAINING (SCOTLAND)

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Bruce Millan): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the future of the teacher training system in Scotland.
Because of the reduction in the school population, there is already a substantial surplus of accommodation. This will remain even when allowance is made for any increase in teachers required to meet improvements in school staffing standards that may become possible in the 1980s. The problem is essentially how to make the best use of this very valuable surplus accommodation. My discussion document of 17th January initiated consultations on the basis of a reduced number of colleges, with the premises released available for other purposes. Subsequently I sought suggestions for ways in which the colleges might diversify their own activities.
I have examined with care the proposals put to me by the colleges for diversification of this kind, and I hope to have further discussions about some of them. I have concluded, however, that diversification could not of itself result in proper utilisation of all the spare facilities. Some of the ideas put to me would merely duplicate provision already made in other types of institution, while others would have only a marginal effect on student numbers, or are unrealistic at present in terms of financial priorities.
In these circumstances I have studied the possible use by other agencies on a long-term or permanent basis of surplus accommodation. I am glad to say that I have identified alternative uses for part of the accommodation in each of the three colleges whose future was left in doubt in my statement of 19th May. I


am now satisfied that on that basis I can retain them as colleges of education.
In relation to Callendar Park, I propose, after consultation with the Forth Valley Health Board, that up to half of the existing accommodation should be used by the board for nurse training. The college of education will continue in being with a reduced maximum capacity of some 400 places. This arrangement will ensure the continuation of teacher training in the area, while enabling nurse-training facilities, which will, of course, be under the control of the health board, to be provided more quickly than had been expected and at substantially less public cost.
I have decided to retain Craiaie, although on a reduced scale, with a maximum of about 400 teacher training places. The college is already temporarily accommodating 200 further education students from Ayr Technical College. I envisage that this will become a permanent arrangement. In addition, there may be scope for making some facilities available to the Ayrshire and Arran Health Board, or for some other purpose.
Similarly, I have decided that Dunfermline College will continue to function in its existing premises at Cramond. In view, however, of its specialised nature and of the fact that its student population will inevitably fall substantially in coming years, I now envisage that Dunfermline should be linked with Queen Margaret College, a nearby central institution which has extended its provision to include courses in nursing and health visiting, drama, speech therapy and physiotherapy. This link would involve making part at least of the expected surplus accommodation in Dunfermline College available to Queen Margaret College, If there is further surplus accommodation, the feasibility of its use by the Lothian Health Board will be explored.
My decision not to merge Dunfermline with Dundee College will inevitably mean serious under-occupation of Dundee. I shall be initiating a reappraisal of the overall provision for non-university tertiary education in the Dundee area to ensure that the best use is made of the facilities available. This reappraisal will involve Tayside Region and the governing bodies of the central institutions in Dundee in addition to that of the college of education itself.
I announced in May that Craiglockhart College would be retained but that this would put in question the need for the use of the Dowanhill premises of Notre Dame College. I have now decided to phase out Dowanhill. Discussions will proceed about possible new uses for this accommodation.
In each of the other colleges there will be surplus accommodation which I wish to see made available for other purposes on a temporary or preferably permanent basis. At Aberdeen, discussions have already begun about possible use of surplus accommodation by Robert Gordon's Institute of Technology, and I intend to have discussions also with Grampian Region. Similarly, at Hamilton discussions have already begun about the use of accommodation for a teachers' resources centre and by the Training Services Agency. I intend that discussions about surplus accommodation at Moray House and Craiglockhart will take place with Lothian Region as soon as possible. At Jordanhill I shall expect the college to centralise its existing accommodation, and I hope that it will be practicable to make some room available for other purposes also.
In May I explained that reductions in staff would be necessary as the student population declined. All members of staff affected will be eligible for compensation under the Crombie Code. I hope that, when account is taken of the increased staffing allowance that I have made for in-service training, subsequent contraction of the system can be achieved largely by voluntarly redundancy and by natural wastage.
Substantial financial savings may be expected from the decisions that I have just announced. The use which I intend of surplus college facilities for other purposes will avoid the need for capital expenditure elsewhere. There will also be substantial revenue savings to the colleges.
These decisions represent the culmination of an extended period of discussion and consultation. I believe that they will bring about the necessary reduction in the size of the teacher training system and permit a sensible use of existing facilities.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Is the Secretary of State aware that his proposals will be


very much welcomed by the Opposition in that they ensure the continuance of teacher training at 10 Scottish colleges and mark the abandonment of the notorious proposals of the January 1977 discussion document, which envisaged the end of teacher training at four colleges?
Will the Secretary of State at least have the grace to admit that this reconsideration is the result, partly, of the two defeats which the Government suffered in the Scottish Grand Committee and on the Floor of the House, and the near-unanimous objection of Scottish educational opinion to his original proposals?
Does the Secretary of State agree that there is a major task to rebuild confidence and morale in the colleges, which have been seriously undermined by the 10 months of uncertainty and delay? It is important that every possible step should be taken to remove the doubts that still remain in Scottish colleges.
Does the Secretary of State still hold to the intake numbers set out in his January 1977 statement, as adjusted by the May statement? Secondly, when will he have a clearer picture of the situation at Dundee, where there appears to be a new threat? We should like some indication of the number of places for teacher training. Thirdly, is the Secretary of State satisfied that the staff problem can be met by wastage and voluntary redundancy? Fourthly, has he given further consideration to the proposals for a primary B.Ed. course at some of the colleges? Finally, in view of all that has happened and all the damage done during the past 10 months to Scottish education and to the colleges, will the Secretary of State give us a clear undertaking that he will never again present to Parliament such half-baked proposals based on inadequate homework?

Mr. Millan: I certainly do not accept that the proposals that I introduced in January or the subsequent proposals introduced in May were in any sense half baked. They dealt with a difficult problem with which my statement today deals in a different way. As I explained earlier in debates on these matters, if it is decided to retain all 10 colleges, there will have to be reductions in accommodation elsewhere. I hope that my statement makes clear that that will affect, for

example, the college at Aberdeen and also the college in Dundee only one-third of whose capacity is being used at present. It is a great pity that hon. Gentlemen opposite when in Government put the Dundee college out to tender, with the resulting large number of places that we now have to deal with.
The figures that I announced about the intake of students should be related to what actually happened in 1977. Some colleges had difficulty in obtaining even the intake figures that I had laid down, although those figures were considerably reduced compared with last year. I want to make clear that the intake figures for a number of years to come are bound to be a good deal lower than could possibly fill the capacity of the colleges, even on the reduced basis that I have announced this afternoon.
I hope that we shall be able to meet the staff problem basically by means of voluntary redundancy, but I can give no guarantee about that. The number of staff involved in the reduction is probably about 200. We shall just have to see how we get on with voluntary redundancy.
I do not think that the primary B.Ed. course is a priority. I have already told the teachers' organisations and COSLA that this is a matter that we can consider in the future, but it does not provide any solution to the present problem.

Mr. William Ross: I hope that the Secretary of State will appreciate that the House has been impressed by the thoroughness of his reconsideration of a very difficult problem. It is churlish now to criticise him for doing what the House asked him to do, and doing it so well. We have had a typical example of Cathcart churlishness! It is always predictable.
The Secretary of State's decision to retain Craigie College as a college of education will be widely welcomed throughout the West of Scotland. It is a tribute to the constructive approach made by all those connected with the college, and a tribute, too, to the reputation that the college has built up during the past 10 years. Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that colleges with these reduced numbers will remain viable for any length of time?
The House has received these proposals today in a welcoming mood. When there


are complaints in respect of Dowanhill, Dundee and the other colleges where reductions have been made, may I appeal to the House for a certain measure of acceptance of those complaints as the natural consequence of the Secretary of State's action?

Mr. Millan: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for what he said. Of course I took account of the views of the House, as hon. Members expected me to do, and that played a major part in the decision that I announced today.
As regards Craigie, there is, and always has been, a very strong regional case. I have not denied that right from the start of this controversy. There is a problem about viability. The number of students at Craigie is down to about 300 now compared with a college capacity of about 800. That is as low as we would want to see it go.
But if we retain the whole 10-college system and we wish to make the smaller college viable at those lower levels, we shall have to ensure that we get a sufficient number of students into those colleges to make them viable. That means that there will have to be a reduction in the numbers of students elsewhere. I hope that that is understood by the House. It is part of the pattern which the House clearly wanted and to which I have responded today.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I should explain to the House that I am in some difficulty today because I do not know which hon. Members represent the various colleges referred to. Therefore, I hope that those who do not have a college in their constituencies will bear this in mind and allow other Members to speak first. We shall see how we get on afterwards.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Is the Secretary of State aware that his statement represents a triumph of the open representations of the Scottish Back Benchers over the sheltered scheming of the bureaucracy? Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman deserves congratulations as the Secretary of State who listened.
The Secretary of State mentioned that there would be substantial financial saving. Could he in any way quantify the difference in the cost to the Exchequer

between the original scheme which he produced in May and the one he has now set before us?

Mr. Millan: Even these tributes will not encourage me to open a new college in Inverness. I have tried to listen not only to the House but to many other people on this difficult problem.
As regards finance, I do not think that I can give an exact figure. If one takes an example on the capital side, the nurse-training facilities at Callendar Park were in the health board's budget at about £750,000. A large part of that sum will be saved, and there will be a lot of savings elsewhere. The ultimate saving will depend on the extent to which over the next few years we are able to take up this surplus accommodation.
At present the total running costs are about £20 million. We have kept that in reasonable check within the last couple of years, but I should expect to see considerable savings there, too.

Mr. Canavan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the decision to keep all 10 colleges open will be widely welcomed, especially at Callendar Park where the proposed diversification makes good educational sense as well as good economic sense? But does not the original bad advice which my right hon. Friend received about closing down the colleges indicate that there is something seriously wrong in the Scottish Education Department? Will he therefore set up an inquiry with a view to introducing a fully comprehensive system of tertiary education in Scotland?

Mr. Millan: On the latter point, I have proposals for a council for tertiary education in Scotland, and I shall be issuing a consultation document about that matter even in advance of the Assembly coming into operation. I shall be announcing that very soon.
As regards the first part of my hon. Friend's question, I should make it clear that the decisions and proposals in the January statement were mine. They were my decisions, not the decisions of bureaucrats, and I stand by them.

Mr. Reid: Will the Secretary of State visit Callendar Park College over the Christmas Recess and explain to the staff and students how his face-saving formula will work? Does he agree that, on his


own figures, the continuing growth of population in the Central Region means that by 1982–83 there will again be an increased demand for places? At that point do the nurses move out and does Callendar Park start to expand again?

Mr. Millan: No. I must make it clear that this is permanent use of Callendar Park. I earnestly ask the hon. Gentleman and the House to understand that there will be a serious surplus of accommodation for a good many years yet. Callendar Park—I do not say this in any critical way—was one of the colleges that had some difficulty in filling the places allocated to them this year. I am perfectly willing to accept that that may be attributed to the uncertainty about the future of the college. However, the House will simply have to understand that there will not be enough students at these colleges to fill even the reduced level of accommodation. I want to make some permanent reduction in the college accommodation. I can do that while still keeping the 10 colleges open. That is one of the objectives that I have had in mind.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I welcome the Secretary of State's decision not to send Dunfermline College to Dundee. However, will he explain to the House the reasons for his desire to link it to Queen Margaret College? Will he consult the boards of governors on this matter? Furthermore, in view of the very great and long-standing need in Queen Margaret College for drama provision, which has been held up for 12 months at least pending the outcome of this controversy, will the Secretary of State keep this matter very much in mind?

Mr. Millan: The reasons for the link are, first, that the two colleges are fairly near one another, but, more importantly, that some of the courses that Queen Margaret College is now offering are really very suitable for linkage with Dunfermline College. At present there is no surplus of accommodation there, but I must say that in the years to come there will be a surplus of accommodation at Dunfermline and we shall have to see how the link goes. We shall have to see whether it is a fairly informal one or whether it later becomes something more formal. At the moment it is impor-

tant to establish some link so that we can see what the possibilities are.

Mr. Lambie: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the statement he made today, which I believe to be a victory for common sense and Back Bench pressure, to which, I am glad to say, the Secretary of State responded. May I have an assurance from him that in next year's intake there will be no direction of students to various colleges of education throughout Scotland and that students who want to come to Craigie in Ayrshire will be allowed to enrol there and not be directed to other colleges in order to make up numbers?

Mr. Millan: It is quite unrealistic in the situation, particularly with 10 colleges open, to expect that there can simply be completely uncontrolled entry. That cannot be. There will have to be total limitations on entry for the sake of the students themselves. There will also have to be a distribution of these students among the colleges. Incidentally, without that action by the Secretary of State and the directions which followed from that, any lecturer who was made redundant, whether voluntarily or compulsorily, would not be entitled to the Crombie compensation. Therefore, there are good reasons from the staff point of view, too, why I should lay down student numbers.

Mr. Younger: Is the Secretary of State aware that the whole of Ayrshire and South-West Scotland will be absolutely delighted at his decision to retain Craigie College? Will he take note of the fact that, in spite of his remarks about numbers, Craigie College has consistently produced more students than he has been prepared to allow it to have? Therefore, I hope that he will reaffirm now that the college has a secure future and that all concerned can work in it to produce good primary school teachers for South-West Scotland.

Mr. Millan: Craigie College has an assured future from what I have said today. However, the experience of teacher unemployment this year and of students leaving all the colleges is really very dismal. The problem is not to turn out qualified teachers but to find them jobs when they have been turned out of colleges. I must try to get the supply of teachers and the demand reasonably balanced.

Mrs. Bain: On a constituency point, since Notre Dame College is to lose Dowanhill, will the Secretary of State at least look at the situation which pertains to the B.Ed course at Notre Dame and end the uncertainty which exists among the staff there? On a more general basis, does not the Secretary of State agree that there is little educational comfort in his document, since there is no overall strategy? Would it not have been useful for the educational world in Scotland to have seen what is to take place at Dundee in terms of tertiary education being reflected throughout the whole of Scotland? Will not the right hon. Gentleman admit that it is a strange set of priorities that one day allows the House of Commons to nod through £427 million without debate and the next day tells it that it has to wait until 1980 for staffing improvements in our schools in Scotland?

Mr. Millan: It is a simple point. Teachers are being trained to do jobs. If the jobs are not available, it is silly to keep on producing teachers. That is a simple fact. The people who suffer most are the students who qualify and then are not able to find jobs. There is a depressingly large number of them at the present time. One of the problems of Dundee is that there is no obvious use for the surplus accommodation in the Dundee college because there is already a high level of tertiary provision in Dundee. We have to look at the situation in Dundee now and see what can be done about the accommodation that will be available in the college.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Will my right hon. Friend clarify what he said about Aberdeen? Is the effect of his announcement today that the intake into Aberdeen is to be further reduced from what it was last year and that there is now to be some spare capacity about which he is to have some discussions with the Grampian Regional Council? Is he aware that when I wrote to discuss the question of Aberdeen the Under-Secretary promised a meeting with either himself or my right hon. Friend before decisions were announced? If Aberdeen is to suffer because of noise made by others, is that not a very poor reward for loyalty?

Mr. Millan: The House will just have to accept that, if there are 10 colleges, there will be fewer students in each of

them than there would be if there were six colleges. It is a simple question of arithmetic. I am not saying what the intake for Aberdeen will be next year. I simply make the point that at the moment there are 1,700 teaching places and only 770 students. The moral is obvious—we have too many places.

Mr. Monro: I am glad that the period of uncertainty has been ended. Is the Secretary of State aware that the people of Dumfries, Galloway and Ayrshire will be delighted at his decision on Craigie? Those who are interested in sport and centres of excellence will welcome his decision on Dunfermline. In this regard, could he confirm that there will be no reduction in standards on account of the amalgamation?

Mr. Millan: I do not envisage any reduction in standards at any of the colleges concerned. I am anxious when we have 10 colleges to retain each of them at a viable level, and I shall attempt to do that.

Mr. Buchan: May I end on the Labour side, where we began and give my right hon. Friend a welcome for his proposals? We asked him to listen to our representations and he has done so. We asked him to retain all the colleges and he has done so. We are especially pleased at his imaginative response to these matters. May I ask him one question? Can he bring in the 1980 proposals a little earlier? Despite the figures on staffing ratios, we can do a great deal better now, with more freedom in the colleges and with more teachers in the schools, in our attempts to move Scottish education forward again.

Mr. Millan: Although I have maintained the basic staffing standards, I have already provided for 500 extra teachers in the current year in deprived areas. I have provided for a considerable number of additional teachers in deprived areas under the urban aid programme. I have provided for extra training for teachers in special schools and I have provided, in the rate support grant for 1978–79, an additional sum of expenditure which would allow authorities, if they are so minded, to employ additional numbers of teachers. So, although I have maintained the basic standards, I have also added additional teachers at the points


where I think most hon. Members would consider them to be most useful, namely in dealing with disadvantaged children either in special schools or in deprived areas.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall call the three hon. Members who have been seeking to catch my eye.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: As the right hon Gentleman has fairly acknowledged, his announcement today, though welcome in many quarters, has serious implications for Dundee and Aberdeen. Can he say more precisely what the implications will be for the staffing of these two colleges? If he cannot be precise today, may I ask how soon the staff of these two colleges will know what this decision will mean for them?
Is he aware that many of the staff gave up teaching jobs to enter colleges of education to lecture and now they cannot return to teaching in the classroom again? While I know that this is a difficult matter, the right hon. Gentleman will be aware that this is a very serious matter for these people.

Mr. Millan: I have already given figures for student numbers for Aberdeen. For Dundee there is a capacity of 1,800 places and there are only 579 students. If there are fewer students at the end of the day, even making additional provision for in-service teaching—which I have done—there are bound to be fewer staff. The House has to face up to that.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Will the Secretary of State accept that his statement today and some of the answers he has given must have cast a shadow over Dundee College of Education? Will he alleviate that worry by giving a cast-iron guarantee that in no circumstances will the Dundee College be shut? Secondly, will he say whether industrial training has been placed among those options being considered for Dundee College?

Mr. Millan: I do not think that industrial training as such would be suitable for a college of education, but we shall see what comes out of the discussions. There has never been any question of Dundee

College being closed. I made that clear from the beginning in my January statement. But I cannot manufacture students to fill all the college places that are available at present. We are bound to have a much reduced student population—we already have, compared with the capacity of the colleges, and this must affect Dundee, too.

Mr. Watt: When will the Secretary of State wake up to the realisation that Scotland is losing out in the provision of education in virtually all aspects of fishing? When he has discussions with the Grampian Regional Council, will he persuade it to use the spare facilities that will be available for the provision of such courses?

Mr. Millan: Sometimes, when I listen to the SNP, I despair of Scottish education, but, on the whole, it is in a healthy state. In pupil-teacher ratios and in the number of students at university or other forms of higher education we compare favourably with the rest of the United Kingdom, and I intend to see that that position continues.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ORDER

Mr. Raphael Tuck: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
SI 1977 No. 1781, which is entitled The. Town and Country Planning General Development (Amendment) Order 1977.
This order amends the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1977. It removes control by the local authorities to such an extent that it would almost be possible, Mr. Speaker, for your neighbour to build a factory in his back garden. It has caused dismay and alarm up and down the country, and the Association of District Councils is horrified at the prospect.
Early-Day Motion No. 110 has been signed by 30 hon. Members on both sides of the House, and a Prayer to annul the order—No. 76—has been signed by 58 hon. Members on both sides of the House. I am asking for leave to move the


Adjournment of the House because the order comes into operation on 1st January 1978 and no time has been allowed by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to discuss it and, if necessary, to negative it. This is, therefore, the only chance that hon. Members will have to avert this disaster.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Tuck) gave me notice before 12 o'clock this morning that he might seek to make an application under Standing Order No. 9 this afternoon.
The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely.
SI 1977 No. 1781, which is entitled The Town and Country Planning General Development (Amendment) Order 1977.
I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's arguments but fear that I cannot accede to his request.

Mr. Tuck: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to ask your guidance on the general issue, without any reference to the particular issue I raised when I was last on my feet.
There are two types of order: one is subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, the other to the negative resolution procedure. The affirmative resolution procedure raises no difficulty, because if an order is not affirmed, it dies. But when an order is subject to the negative resolution procedure, how can Members of Parliament negative it when no time is allowed for it by the Leader of the House? That is the subject on which I should like your guidance.

Mr. Powell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am aware that you do not technically cause matters to be referred to the Select Committee on Procedure, but very often observations on the subjects addressed to and falling from the Chair are taken note of. Therefore, perhaps one might be permitted, on a point of order, to say that it is an absurdity that we should pass statutes

providing an opportunity for the annulment of subordinate legislation but that then our procedure should deny hon. Members the opportunity to do so.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. If the recommendation which I made to the last Select Committee which examined this question had been accepted—namely, that the 40 praying days should not include Saturdays and Sundays, when the House does not sit, and Fridays, when Standing Orders do not allow Prayers to be taken anyway—we should have had more opportunities to pray against a measure of this kind. Might I suggest that this should again be referred to the Procedure Committee so that Members not familiar with the intricacies may not be under the mistaken belief that they have 40 days in which to pray when, in fact, they have substantially fewer?

Mr. Speaker: I am much obliged to the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Tuck) for the way he presented his point of order, to the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), to whom I always listen with respect on these matters. It pays me to do so.
The right hon. Member for Down, South is correct in that this is a matter for a Select Committee. It concerns the arrangement of the business of the House and, therefore, I have no power in the matter The House will appreciate that the problem is one which has concerned us over a long period of years. It has been considered by no fewer than three Select Committees—namely, the Select Committee on Delegated Legislation of 1952–53, the Procedure Committee of 1970–71, and the Joint Committee on Delegated Legislation of 1971–72. Successive changes were made in the Standing Orders and the procedure of the House, following the reports of these Committees. If further changes are required, it is for the House to make them. I have no power at all to do so.

BILL PRESENTED

CIVIL AVIATION

Mr. Secretary Dell, supported by Mr. Secretary Shore, Mr. Secretary Millan, Mr. Secretary Mulley, Mr. Robert Sheldon and Mr. S. Clinton Davis, presented a Bill to establish a fund from which payments may be made in respect of expenses incurred for the purpose of protecting aircraft, aerodromes or air navigation installations against acts of violence or in connection with the policing of airports; to amend the law relating to the Civil Aviation Authority and the British Airways Board; to amend the law relating to noise, vibration and atmospheric pollution caused by aircraft; and otherwise to amend the law relating to aerodromes, aircraft and civil aviation; and for connected purposes; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Monday next and to be printed. [Bill 41.]

EUROPEAN ASSEMBLY ELECTIONS BILL

Considered in Committee [Progress, 12th December.]

[Mr OSCAR MURTON in the Chair]

4.28 p.m.

Mr. Tim Rathbone: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. I should like to draw your attention to starred Amendment No. 133 standing in my name and the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison), which I presume has not been selected for several reasons—one being that it is starred.
The reason for this amendment being put down was to enable the Committee to discuss today the broad principle of different types of more proportional electoral systems than the one suggested in the Bill.
Amendments Nos. 121, 122 and 123 put forward one alternative to the regional list system suggested in the Bill. My hon. Friend and I hoped that you would decide, Mr. Murton, to choose this other amendment for discussion so that the Committee, in these peculiar circumstances when we are discussing a point of principle rather than a point of detail, could discuss this as an alternative system.

The Chairman: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice that he intended raising this matter. I reply very shortly. I know that he will understand that in the selection or non-selection of amendments I have to exercise my usual discretion.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: May I raise a point of order, Mr. Murton, of which I have given you notice? At the top of page 669 of the Amendment Paper there is a printer's error in Amendment No. 78, a new schedule. In line 12" Truro" should be included at the end of group 1, not at the beginning of group 2. There is no dispute that this is an error in printing, but it is worth pointing out now, otherwise those reading this amendment might regard it as bizarre. It is not a bizarre amendment. The transposition is due to a misprint. Truro properly belongs to group 1.

The Chairman: I thank the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) for warning me that he was raising this point of order. Perhaps I should


apologise on behalf of the printers in that Truro has moved too far to the east. I have no doubt that, if the amendment be selected in due course, it will have been put right.
The first amendment which I have selected is Amendment No. 24.

Mr. Charles Morrison: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) on Amendment No. 133, Mr. Murton. I am a little intrigued as to why the amendment has not been selected, given the selection of, for example, Amendment No. 121—I have no desire or intention to question your ruling—so may I ask whether it will be in order during the debate to refer to the question of additional Members? If this idea of an additional Member system should find favour with the Committee it might be sensible for it to be raised at a later stage.

The Chairman: I think that the answer to the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison) is that "incidental references" may be made. If the hon. Member can use his ingenuity without going too deeply into the matter, the Chair will be benevolent.

Clause 3

METHOD OF ELECTION

Mr. Frederick Willey: I beg to move Amendment No. 24, in page 1, line 18, leave out from beginning to 'Assembly' in line 6 on page 2.
I move this amendment not in any partisan way, nor am I aware of any public pressure on the matter. I have not received public representations, but the issue is not unimportant. The Committee should not consider electoral reform unless the electorate—which is the element that matters—expresses a desire for such reform.
I voted for and support the Bill but I realise that there is not yet wholehearted public support for our membership of the EEC. Therefore it is better to leave things as they are. The acceptance of this amendment would allay suspicions while a change in the electoral system will only aggravate those suspicions.
It has been said, even this afternoon, that this is a question of principle. But I first want to deal with one or two peripheral considerations. First, it is said that acceptance of the amendment will make it difficult, if not impossible, for the Bill to be implemented within the time limits that have been set out. That may be attractive to some of my hon. Friends but it is not my intention to frustrate the Bill. Therefore, I am comforted by the fact that timing appears not to be crucial. The Prime Minister has said, perhaps anticipating today's debate, that failure to attain the target date is not the end of the world.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Stewart), who always speaks with enviable clarity, has repeatedly asked the Government to explain how the acceptance of this amendment will prejudice the progress of the Bill. It seems that he has never received an adequate reply.
Apart from that, if the Government go dilly-dallying on the way it will then be outwith them to argue that time is of the essence. If the Government dither and procrastinate, they cannot then persuade us that we are compelled by force majeure to take a decision which, if we had time to consider it, we should not contemplate.
There is a second peripheral consideration. It is argued that, after all, the Assembly is unimportant. It is suggested that we are dealing with an advisory Assembly and it does not really matter what we do. Therefore, the argument is: let there be a revolutionary change in our electoral system because its incidence is insignificant. That seems to me to be standing the argument on its head.
Whatever its incidence, it is a change of some importance. The real argument seems to me to be that if the Assembly does not matter, it affords no pretext for any such change and it is better to leave the electoral system as it is.
However, when we say that the Assembly is unimportant, we are speaking only in the short term. The Government in their White Paper say that the Assembly, transformed, will be in a developing situation. We all know that any change that we make now will become increasingly singnificant as that situation develops.
The third peripheral matter is that, if we support the amendment, we shall disrupt the Lib-Lab pact. That is put in a low key and is given a low profile. I note that Christopher Mayhew, whom many of us will remember as a former Member of this House warned Labour Members of Parliament who
want the pact to continue
that
they must abstain on Clause 3 and not vote against it.
That is rather pusillanimous. On any matter of constitutional importance, it is not good enough to abstain.
I do not wish to repeat the miserable experience of the minority Labour Government of 1929–31. A few years afterwards Lord Attlee confessed that the Labour Party had voted against its principles under the compulsion of a bargain with the Liberals. In any case, we are in a much healthier position than were the previous Labour Government. So far as I know, no bargains on the 1929–31 pattern have been struck with the Liberals. The Liberals are free to decide issues on their merits, and so are we.
However, I give this warning to some of my colleagues. If, with Labour support, the amendment is defeated, the result would be significant. The breach would have been made and Liberal support would increasingly be dependent on our acceptance of proportional representation.
However, we should not be overborne by those considerations. We should consider the principle. I cannot express myself in any violent terms. In fact, I confess that I was once a supporter of the list system. In mitigation, I should add that, at the time, I was a child. On behalf of the Labour Party, my father negotiated a list method of election for County Durham. There was all-party agreement. It was to be an electoral experiment. However, on second thoughts, the Conservatives withdrew their support and the plan was scuppered.
As it happened, Labour swept County Durham and, apart from the debacle of 1931, has done so ever since. It seemed to be a factor which affected my father's thinking. It certainly affected mine, and ever since then I have tended to take a regional view about proportional repre-

sentation. When in 1964 we had a brief debate on the single transferable vote, I was not among the 20 Members who rallied to its support. In fact, the only present colleagues of mine who did so were the Leader of the House, the current Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure and my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis).
I accepted the case put by the Secretary of State for Energy, when he said that if the proposition were accepted
There would be a movement toward the centre which would weaken the basic alternative choice which is the real advantage under a party system."—[Official Report, 9th June 1964; Vol. 696, c. 252.]
Like Lord Attlee, I regard myself as Left of Centre. For me personally, being Left is more important than being Centre. But for democracy in this country, the Centre is probably the more important. Within the dialectic framework which is vital to a virile democracy, we have evolved an unwritten, subtle, sensitive, responsible system of government. I believe that that is far more important than the arithmetic and the statistics. I believe that what is important is our political behaviour, or the spirit of the constitution, or our way of political life. I do not think—and I do not think that the Committee ought to think—that this is the moment to allow the thin end of the wedge of change. On the contrary, I believe it is particularly apposite now that we should uphold the position of Members, preserve the position of the constituencies unimpaired, resist the party caucuses and reject the concept that we can vote for a list.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) has argued the difficulties of vast constituencies of half a million or so voters. But I would rather face those difficulties and not tamper with the constitution, whatever the demands of expediency may be.
Some time ago I forecast that we might be in for a period of political stalemate. So far that forecast is holding good. But what has been quite unexpected has been the success of the present Government in effectively governing without a majority.
If we are to have a continuing stalemate, it is better to build on that experience. There is no occasion to prejudice matters by changing the electoral system


now. I believe that we should accept the Select Committee's recommendations that it would not be appropriate to bring in an entirely new method of voting at this stage, that in the European context this would be inopportune and that the first-past-the-post system should be used.
Later we may be compelled to change the electoral system, but that would have to depend, as I said earlier, on an interest and concern spread in the political parties and shared by those concerned—the electorate. Meanwhile, it would be foolish, dangerous and unnecessary to countenance change. I hope that the Committee will decide that the occasion for it has not yet arisen.

4.45 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Merlyn Rees): It might be for the convenience of the Committee, in the way that we are conducting the debate, if I put a view on behalf of the Government at this early stage.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: How much of the Government?

Mr. Rees: If I contain myself at this early stage I shall not reveal my true feelings about the hon. Gentleman. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) for putting down the amendment, because it enables us at long last, when we have skirted around it for a time, to discuss and then vote on this matter of the electoral system.
May I repeat, first, what I said last evening about the procedures that are involved either way? I think that they need to be made clear. If the amendment is carried, the Committee will no doubt agree to the consequential amendments removing all references to the regional list system from the Bill. If the amendment is defeated, the Government will table amendments to remove from the Bill the last six words of Clause 3(1) and the whole of Clause 3(2), as well as Schedules 1 and 2. This will provide for the elections to be held on a regional list system and will remove the procedural device for switching to the simple majority system by resolution.
The procedural device in Clause 3(2) was introduced solely to enable the two electoral systems to be set out in the same Bill. The Committee can, therefore,

make a choice between the two systems. The Government favour the regional list system, but Government supporters will have a free vote on the issue. The subject of method has been discussed generally many times, but, given the way that it has come out of a day's debate, I should like to explain how the regional list system would work and to set out the Government's reasons for recommending it in preference to our traditional simple majority system.

Mr. John Mendelson: Before my right hon. Friend leaves the point of principle, would not this be a useful opportunity for him, for the first time on behalf of the Government, to explain why the Government prefer this system recommended to the electorate?

Mr. Rees: I shall do that in the course of the debate.
Claue 4 provides for the electoral regions to be used in the regional list system. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would each be an electoral region. Scotland would elect eight Members, Wales four and Northern Ireland three Members, and the nine electoral regions in England are set out in Schedule 3.
The electoral regions chosen for England are based on the existing economic planning regions. The one exception is in the South-East, where, to avoid a massive area with more than 12 million electors and 24 representatives, Greater London has been separated from the South-East Economic Planning Region. The number of seats allocated to each region depends on the size of its electorate. Roughly speaking, the result is that each region has one Member for every half million or so electors.
The Government believe that the choice of the economic planning region as the basis for regional list constituencies is reasonable and fair. The planning regions are relatively familiar and generally reflect existing regional characteristics. I will come to the discussions later. There has to be a base for a list system, and I am arguing that the economic planning regions are a basis on which it can be done. The Government recognise the importance of observing these as far as practicable.
Some hon. Members will notice that Schedule 3 departs from the proposal in the White Paper on direct elections by


separating East Anglia from the East Midlands. Each of these is an economic planning region in its own right, but they were combined in the scheme in the White Paper and have now been kept separate one from another in the scheme in the Bill to reflect the wishes of a number of hon. Members.
I know there are those who dispute vigorously whether their constituencies or the counties containing them should appropriately be placed within the electoral regions concerned. We can argue the details later. My own view is that it would be difficult to find a better alternative to the proposals in Clause 4 and Schedule 3. I think that the fact that they are economic planning regions has merit in the European context.
In each region political parties may field as many candidates as there are Members to be elected for that region, and independents, of course, may also stand. As in our parliamentary elections, the voter will vote for one named candidate only. But for regional list elections a vote cast for a candidate will be not only a vote for that candidate but also a vote for the party which he represents. In other words, votes cast for one candidate may help to elect other candidates in the same party. It is, therefore, essential that the voter is able to see as a group all the candidates standing for the same party.
The number of candidates contesting each multi-Member region makes the normal form of parliamentary ballot paper unsuitable because of the advantage it gives to those whose names are higher in alphabetical order in a very long list of candidates. A new form of ballot paper has therefore been devised which places the names of candidates alphabetically and horizontally across the ballot paper. The names of the political parties are listed alphabetically and vertically down the ballot paper—this is shown on page 60, Schedule 4. It will be noted that this enables the voter to see at a glance the individual candidate for whom he is voting, that candidate's party, and the other candidates in the same party who may also benefit from his vote.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Is not my right hon. Friend seeing this matter through rose-hued spectacles? He

says "at a glance". Is it not true that for South-East England the likelihood is that there will be at least 60 candidates?

Mr. Rees: The problem of the large number of candidates is one aspect, but I shall come in a moment to the question of half a million people in one constituency, which will be the case in first past the post, where there are other problems as well. Whichever way it goes in elections to Europe, given 81 seats, there are problems. I am trying to set out the problems, because they have to be considered.
The allocation of seats between parties and candidates is as follows. First, the total vote for each individual candidate is determined. Then the votes of each candidate on the same party list are added together to give the total vote for each political party. Next, the seats are allocated between the political parties according to the "highest average" rule, which means that the seats are allocated proportionately to the votes received. Within the party totals, the seats go to the individual candidates who have won the most personal votes.
As regards the principle raised by my hon. Friend, I yield to no one in my support for the Westminster system in constituencies, in the sort of system we have for election to the House of Commons, and also for the rôle of the Member of Parliament. I shall not develop that theme. I checked this morning what I said on behalf of the then Opposition—in 1972, I think—about a single transferable vote system for Northern Ireland. I find that I put the case for the Westminster system and method of election but said that in the particular case of Northern Ireland I supported the single transferable vote as an exception. The same goes here.
I believe that Europe is different, because there will be 81 United Kingdom Members and because of the rôle of the European Parliament. I want it to remain different and I believe that the regional list system is appropriate for the European Assembly, which we are discussing today.
I believe that the regional list system—given the half a million electorate that there would be in the 81 seats on first past the post, and comparing that with the proportional system that I am


recommending—is likely to produce a fairer result. The simple majority system is excellent where there is a comparatively large number of constituencies—in our case, 635. However, the fewer the number of constituencies involved, the more dramatic is the effect of a swing of electoral opinion on the allocation of seats as between competing political parties. That is not a matter of what the situation was a year ago or what it is now. Whenever elections are held for Europe on the basis of 81 seats, a marginal swing would have a profound effect on the number of people from each party that would go to Europe.

Mr. George Cunningham: My right hon. Friend keeps talking about political parties as though he is assuming—and no doubt this is realistic—that the groups put up on the ballot paper will be political party groups. He referred a moment ago to the need to be fair. Given that there is a division of view within the principal political parties with regard to European policy, how does my right hon. Friend define a fair result in this context?

Mr. Rees: I have been considering this matter in the context of my own part of the country. I want to refer in a moment to the timing and the steps that must be taken in selecting candidates—and it would be done on a different basis when eigh or nine constituencies were being lumped together to form a larger constituency—the ideal way would be to have a spread of candidates with different views, selected by the parties. In that way the candidates could express their different views and where the electors were voting not for one person but for a party, the individual's views would receive expression.
The simple majority system, I repeat, is suitable for the House of Commons where there are 635 seats. But, when there are 81 seats to be filled—

Mr. Ron Thomas: My right hon. Friend talked about the transference of X number of votes from one candidate to another because they were allocated to parties. Then, in answer to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham (Mr. Spearing) about fairness, he said he hoped that there would be a cross-section of can-

didates. So presumably we could have a situation where the votes given to an anti-Marketeer were then given to a pro-Marketeer who was second in the ballot.

Mr. Rees: In each area there would be a party list and, of course, there would not be a transference—that is not the correct term—but nevertheless the votes would be used in that way. That is the case. But in all parts of the House there are differences of views in all parties. I believe that this system would allow those views to be expressed in a better way than on the 81-single member system. So the point I am making is that there is overall a more proportional result.

Mr. George Cunningham: Proportionate to what?

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: I want to get this right in my mind. The Home Secretary is saying that any member of the electorate who wishes to vote for a particular individual cannot do so without at the same time voting for other members of the same party, however much he may dislike their views. Secondly, if there are three or four independents standing in one of these groups, does an independent automatically get the votes of another independent on the same system?

Mr. Rees: The first question the right hon. Gentleman asked was simply repeating what I had said. With regard to the second point, no. An independent might break through first time round. But an independent could be elected. As one moved down the list and the votes were averaged, it would be possible for an independent to be elected.
This matter of timing is important. I think that I should go into it in some depth because it is a factor that we have to take into account.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to say whether in his view an independent will not be at a disadvantage if we adopt the regional list system?

Mr. Rees: If an independent, or, indeed, any other individual candidate, gets a sufficient number of votes, there is not the slightest reason why he or she should not be elected. But he is not a member of a group and would not


be carried in by the collective view. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the system he will see that of course it is possible.

Mr. George Cunningham: Will the Secretary of State confirm that an individual candidate is at a disadvantage compared with a group candidate to the extent that an individual candidate cannot get elected to the European Parliament if he stands and not one single member of the electorate votes for him, but a group candidate can stand and get not one single one out of the many millions of votes of the electors and still get elected? Is that not a wee bit of a flaw in the system?

Mr. Rees: It is what the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) calls an absurdity, because, whereas it could happen, it would be extremely surprising if it did. It would be extremely freakish if it happened, but in principle it is right. If one is looking for odd results, taking the first-past-the-post system that I support, it is equally possible to have somebody elected to this place on very much a minority.

Mr. George Cunningham: Not on no votes at all.

Mr. Rees: That may well be. Although my hon. Friend is putting it that way, because mathematically he is right, it could not happen in practice. That is the point I am making.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: My right hon. Friend is perhaps correct in talking about the absurdity of the example put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham). Of course, that would be unlikely to happen. But the key point to be made is that the votes that are cast for parties will carry more weight than those cast for independents. Therefore, constituents will cast votes in an unequal fashion whether they vote for parties on the one hand or independents on the other, because some can be transferred and some cannot.

Mr. Rees: Yes, that is absolutely right. But I have not noticed that many independents have been elected to the House of Commons in recent years under the existing system. I am glad to know that

my hon. Friend is speaking up in favour of independents.

Mr. Skinner: I am speaking up for the Labour Party.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Rees: I am glad that we understand that we are both speaking for the same thing, because I am not speaking in favour of independents.
I turn to the question of timing. It is extremely important to get this clear in the debate. One of the advantages of the regional list system to those who want to make it more likely that Britain will be able to meet the proposed target of May/June 1978 and to ensure that the direct elections take place is that it is the fastest system. I am not saying that that should weigh against those who are not in favour of it.
As I explained on Second Reading, under the regional list system, the multimember constituencies are specified in Schedule 3. Therefore, once the Bill has received Royal Assent the political parties will know the final nature of constituencies and can begin the selection of candidates immediately. If the simple majority system is chosen, a minimum of 18 weeks will be required after Royal Assent for the determination of 78 single-member constituencies. I shall return to that matter.
The Boundary Commissions can do some preliminary work before Royal Assent, but until the Bill is on the statute book, they will not have formal authority to proceed. It should take them only a couple of weeks to produce their initial proposals for the first-past-the-post system. Most of the 18 weeks will be required for consideration and representations by the political parties and the production and publication of new proposals by the Boundary Commissions.
I shall take a little further the figures that I have given in the past. If the Committee agrees that the Boundary Commissions should be required to establish the constituencies for the first election, the following approximate timetable after Royal Assent could apply. For the Boundary Commission to proceed, making regulations and the preparation for elections would take 18 weeks at least. The Boundary Commissions' proposals would be brought to the House and debated, and it would take about two weeks


for Parliament to consider them. I cannot be absolutely sure of that time.

Sir Anthony Royle: Would it not be possible for the Boundary Commissions to start work imimmediately after tonight if the Committee decides to go for a first-past-the-post system?

Mr. Rees: The Boundary Commissions can do preliminary work, but it is not possible—whatever view one has—to allow the Commissions to proceed without statutory authority. That would be wrong.
Then there is the question of the selection of candidates and the campaign. That could take six weeks. I simply cull a time from the air. All hon. Members know the practices in their own parties. The figures that I have given are minimum and there is some element of guesswork in them.
The point that I am making is that we are in December. There have been arguments about the delay which has arisen because of the strong feelings on both sides of the question and because of the nature of the situation. I do not apologise for the fact that the delay has arisen because of that. It is one of the factors implicit in the discussion.
Royal Assent is the key date from which we must work. It is clear that unless there is a speed-up in procedures when we get back after Christmas, the chance of a first-past-the-post election being held in May/June next year is extremely remote. That might please the anti-Marketeers.

Mr. Neil Macfarlane: Why the indecent haste when only a few weeks ago the Prime Minister said that it would not be the end of the world if we did not achieve the objective by 1978?

Mr. Rees: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said what he has said. The Leader of the Opposition has taken a similar attitude in different parts of the world. I am giving the dates.

Mr. Jim Spicer: The Secretary of State says that he makes no apology for the fact that we are holding the debate in December 1977. Can he give us one reason why this debate was not held in December 1976?

Mr. Rees: For the reason that I have just given. Many Bills come through the House on the basis of election manifestos and they can go through quite quickly. The speed sometimes depends on the size of the majority. There are differences of opinion, certainly on this side of the Committee and I believe on the other side—although perhaps not to such a degree. It remains that this has been a factor in the speed with which the Bill has come to the Committee.

Mr. David Howell: I know that the Secretary of State is trying to set out the timing schedule as fairly as he can. He said that it was all right for the multi-Member electoral boundaries to be decided by Parliament but that in no circumstances would he accept that single-Member boundaries should be decided by Parliament.

Mr. Rees: I remember being a junior Minister in 1969 when the Government of the day put forward proposals for new constituency boundaries. We were told forcefully that it was not right for the Government of the day to put proposals before the House that had not been dealt with by the Boundary Commissions. There is a point of principle here. I would not want to put a Bill to the House when I have asked colleagues in the Home Office to come up with a scheme for dividing the seats in the United Kingdom into groups of eight and then have a debate in the House of Commons.
I can illustrate the situation by considering what would happen if the Boundary Commissions, under option 5, came forward with a scheme for eight or nine seats to be put together to create a new constituency. I have given thought to this in the North of England. In Leeds, for example, if the Commission went north of the city to achieve the extra two or three seats, it would be moving into the Tory area. If the Commission went south of the city it would move into a Labour area. The larger Leeds seat would get its character from whether one moved north, south, east or west.
When one is cutting up the country into groups of eight or nine constituencies, at the end of the day hon. Members will have different ideas about where the starting point should be. I have considered what should be done in the London area. There are two or more


ideas about what to do. The political complexion of seats will depend upon whether one moves round the periphery of London to places such as Barnet, Harrok and Uxbridge. If one moves down to the centre so that the suburban seats are joined with the working-class seats, that could determine a different result. If the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) believes that when that debate comes before the House of Commons it will lead to an academic discussion, he is mistaken.
I could draw up European boundaries for the first-past-the-post system which I would regard as admirable. I would be prepared to put them before the House. I suspect that there would be a political edge in the cutting-up of the country, because I might not be particularly objective in what I did. It is therefore a good idea, I believe, to stick to the Boundary Commission arrangement that we have made.

Mr. David Howell: I take it that the right hon. Gentleman thinks that the multi-Member constituency boundaries can be drawn without any of these problems and that somehow there will be no difficulties of the kind he envisages in the single-Member seats even if the boundaries of those single-Member constituencies are drawn predominantly on county-boundary lines.

Mr. Rees: That is why in putting the proposals in the White Paper I suggested using the economic planning regions. No one could suggest that I or the Government, in deciding on that system, had culled something out of the air for party advantage or any other reason. The planning regions were drawn up 13 years ago and I would hope therefore no one would suggest that I was seeking party advantage in handling it in that way.

Mr. Nigel Lawson: That is precisely why I propose in an amendment first-past-the-post constituencies on a county basis, because, equally, nobody could suggest that the counties had been plucked arbitrarily out of the air—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] If the right hon. Gentleman has proposals for changing the county boundaries, let him put them before the House. I was under the impression that the Government accepted those boundaries. Why does he not then

go on those boundaries? It means some multi-Member constituencies, but that is what the Government are proposing for the Scottish Assembly.

Mr. Rees: The reaction of certain of my hon. Friends during that question illustrates the sort of debate we shall have when these proposals come before the House. Many of my right hon. and hon. Friends believe that the county boundaries were drawn up with a certain lack of local government objectivity and a great deal of political subjectivity in the early 1970s.
I am trying to put all the aspects of this matter on the record in order to ease the debate that we are to have. Under the regional list system the political parties will have to consider their arrangements. It would be a much newer concept than for the single-Member, although larger, constituencies. The Home Office will consult the local authority associations about the practical arrangements, such as the appointment of returning officers.
I turn now to the question of timing, and here I am trying to be as objective as I can. I have made an unofficial estimate of what will happen under the regional list system after Royal Assent. Preparation for the elections will take at least six weeks. The Bill provides for a four-week period for the election campaign, and so we are talking in terms of three months for the regional list system, but that is if the regional planning areas are accepted as the basis for the larger constituencies.
So what is the situation? First-past-the-post arrangements certainly appeal difficult to achieve in time for May and June, and the time taken for the regional list system would depend on the Royal Assent, which provides the key date. The timing of the European elections also would not be a matter for the Government alone. The target is May/June, but the matter would have to be settled by all nine member States if we fail to meet that target.
5.15 p.m.
On at least three occasions on Irish legislation I supported the then Government when they put forward a scheme of PR for the Province. I made it clear that in general PR was not acceptable to me beyond that point. PR tends to


produce coalition Governments or Administrations. The simple majority system is rather different, which is why we have it in our parliamentary and local government. The European Assembly, however, does not produce a Government or Administration. The Members elected from Britain will not even sit as one delegation but as members of the various political groups, and our representatives will number only 81 out of a total membership of 410. Furthermore, the European Assembly does not have any independent legislative functions. As Article 137 of the Treaty of Rome explains, it has" advisory and supervisory" powers. I should like it to remain that way because I am certainly not a federalist.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Will my right hon. Friend deal with the thin-end-of-the-wedge argument? It is not right that if we legislate here for PR in respect only of the European talking shop, that will increase the pressure for PR to be applied to this place, and is that not what the Liberals want?

Mr. Rees: I can only speak for myself, and I shall argue this point in the New Year. I supported PR for Northern Ireland and I still do.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: So do I.

Mr. Rees: I did not support it because I regarded it in any way as the thin edge of the wedge, but because I was trying to look objectively at the problems of Northern Ireland. I am trying now to consider the nature of the European problem, given the rôle of the individual Member of Parliament in his relationship with his constituency and the rôle that the Member plays in this House, a rôle which has produced men of remarkable ability of all parties over the years, because they were given the support of their constituency parties. But this does not apply in the case of the European Assembly, and nor does it apply to the duties that a Member of the Assembly will have.

Mr. Norman Buchan: Surely there is no analogy between Northern Ireland and Europe. PR was introduced into Northern Ireland precisely in order to create a situation in which a community otherwise

deprived of representation could share in that representation and government within a subordinate body. The European Assembly will have none of these characteristics.

Mr. Rees: I was answering the question about the thin end of the wedge. I did not regard the Northern Ireland proposals as the thin end of the wedge, and I do not regard these as such, either. The European Assembly is a different body and I want to keep it that way. I believe that it would be better to have representation over a wider span with a larger number of members. One Member will not be representing one particular part. This could lead to a different sort of Member with a different sort of responsibility.

Mr. Skinner: Is my right hon. Friend saying, on the basis of the Irish analogy, where certain political parties in Ireland could not be represented because of the so-called gerrymandering, that in the European context that deprived minority is not the Labour Party but the Liberal Party? Is he saying that if we adopt a similar approach here to that adopted in Northern Ireland our purpose is purely to assist the minority in this place, namely, the Liberal Party?

Mr. Rees: I was responding to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon) about the thin end of the wedge. I used the Irish analogy to show that I could support PR for one part of the United Kingdom without arguing that it was therefore necessary to use it at Westminster.

Mr. David Price: Will the Home Secretary explain just how he sees the work of the European Members? In the South-East 14 Members will be representing 7 million people. How can 14 Members do that when they belong to different parties? We at one time had dual-Member constituencies in the United Kingdom. They were abolished, and as far as I know no one suggested that they should be restored.

Mr. Rees: On previous occasions I have been asked how one would canvass. The same applies to one-Member constituencies with half a million electors in the first-past-the-post system. Whatever we decide, and whenever we have elections into Europe, the Member for


Europe, whether he be a Member for halt a million people or shares his responsibility over a region, will develop a different relationship with his area. Certainly he will not be doing the job that we are doing here. I would not want a European Member to be a competitor for the work that is done by individual Members of this Parliament.
Given a limited number of seats available and the limited nature of the European Assembly, I recommend with conviction that the House should adopt the regional list system for the elections to the European Assembly on a free vote tonight. The considerations that I have outlined and that have led me to make this recommendation do not apply to Westminster elections or to elections to the Scottish and Welsh Assemblies. In all these other cases I stand by the superior advantages of the simple majority system. I do not believe that the arguments for the simple majority are nearly as compelling, however, when one is talking about the European Parliament.
The regional list system will enable us to make speedier progress and it is liable to produce a more representative result than would be the case with the simple majority system. Where there are 81 seats, the swings would be enormous between elections in a way that we have never seen before. I recommend that the House should reject the amendment and decide in favour of the regional list system.

Mr. Douglas Hurd: The main concern of most people on this side of the Committee is that the Bill should succeed. We have given clear proof of this twice, once by asking our members to support the Second Reading of this Government measure and, yesterday, by sacrificing half a day of our own time to ensure that today's decision was taken in an orderly way at a reasonable hour. No one, looking at the evidence, can doubt our commitment to the Bill. Without that commitment the Government's measure would be dead—murdered by the Government's supporters.
We are concerned here with an inevitable difference of opinion on an important but secondary part of the Bill—the system used for the first round of elections. This is less important, in my

opinion, than Clause 1 and the whole question of the powers of the European Parliament. That is more important than the system of election, and will be discussed again. That is why I resent the attempt made by some commentators outside the House of Commons to impose a bogus test on this debate today. There has been an attempt to link enthusiasm for Europe with support for the regional list. I am not alone in finding that argument irritating and illogical.
Many of my right hon. and hon. Friends have carried the heat and the burden over Europe, and when the Division lists are studied tomorrow it will be found that they are divided about the system of election while remaining united in their support for the success of this country in Europe. Like the Government, we are having a free vote tonight, and what I say about the system of election is my own personal view.
I have come to the view, unlike the Home Secretary, that we should have the first-past-the-post system for the first round. I say this as one who actually favours electoral reform in this Kingdom and who has spoken and voted for it accordingly. But in this matter I want above all to see direct elections held in this country successfully and in an orderly manner.
When we began discussing this matter in Select Committee 18 months ago I came quickly to the conclusion that it would be a mistake to depart from the existing system for the first round. Direct elections are a major innovation for this country. They are not merely a technical change. To impose another major innovation at the same time and in the same process would be a mistake.
Many people have discussed this matter since the Select Committee. I have been to many political meetings since then, in different parts of the country and I have been powerfully reinforced in my feeling that one should not pile one innovation on top of another. However, it is a balance of judgment. There are some arguments in favour of proportional representation for the first round which I accept. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) made some points in Blackpool, and again last night, which strike me as valid, but on balance my own judgment comes down on the other side.
There are three particular points that I pick out of the arguments for the Government's proposals for a regional list system. Such a system abolishes single-Member constituencies for Europe. This is an important point for many of us—it is not a fad or a quirk. I hold strongly to the notion that a Member of Parliament, whether for Westminster or Europe, represents and should be open to all those living in his area. I find it very distasteful to imagine sitting as a Member for a multi-Member constituency and in theory having only those people who have voted for me coming to see me. That is a narrower view of our profession than most of us would want to see, and personally I dislike it.
It is possible to reconcile the PR system with single-Member constituencies. The Germans do it and the Hansard Society did it. The hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) did it in his amendment to the Scotland Bill, for which I twice voted. A PR system can retain in large part the single-Member constituency, but the regional list system abolishes the single-Member constituency and therefore alters the basis of our profession.
The second argument one hears in favour of the regional list system is that it is proportional and as it is generally agreed that we should move to a common system within the Community, which is likely to be PR, therefore, we might as well get it over and done with. There is a lot of loose thinking in that argument. I welcome the fact that the Community will agree to try to work towards a common system, but I share the doubts that have been widely expressed that this will happen quickly. When that agreement is reached it is quite true that it is unlikely to be on the basis of the first-past-the-post system. However, it is also unlikely to be on the basis of the regional list system either. The regional list system is not practised in the Community. I believe that it was discovered by a Liberal professor in the Forests of. Finland. It is not a system that the Community is likely to adopt.
We are faced with the prospect of having to change twice. We shall have to change from the first-past-the-post system to the regional list system if the amendment is defeated. Then, when the common system is devised we shall have

to change again. I do not accept the argument that it is easier to change from one form of proportional representation to another than it is to change from first past the post to PR. Anyone who has ever moved house knows that it is just as hard to move five miles as it is to move 500 miles. The same applies to changes in the electoral system.
I deal now with the question of timing which the Home Secretary discussed today. I believe that this is crucial to the judgment of many hon. Members and that there has been a great deal of obscure and misleading talk. The Prime Minister has smudged his words, and he did so again this afternoon so as to convey different impressions to different people about what he is up to.
5.30 p.m.
It is a little surprising that some people, including the Liberal Party and The Times this morning, have accepted some of the arguments about timing without doing their homework. If we do our homework, we come to a rather different conclusion from that which is now being widely bandied about. It is important to note what the Prime Minister has actually been saying as opposed to the impression that has been created. He has not been saying and did not say this afternoon that, with the regional list, we can meet the target date of May/June 1978. He has carefully avoided that statement. The Leader of the Liberal Party has said it, as has the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, but the Prime Minister has not said it—nor, so far as I am aware, has the Foreign Secretary or the Home Secretary.
The Prime Minister has said something different—namely, that with the regional list it will be possible to hold these elections next year. That is true. It will be equally possible to say that under the first-past-the-post system we can hold these elections next year, but this ignores the crucial point "Can we meet the target date of May/June next year?"
The Prime Minister finds himself in the situation of a man who has undertaken with a group of others to use his best endeavours to catch a train that will leave in May/June 1978. It is not much good such a person charging up the platform shouting" Haven't I done well? We have missed it by only 10 minutes". That means that everybody has to sit down


with his timetables and work out the next train he can catch. Whether he has missed it by five, 10 or 30 minutes is irrelevant. These are the political facts of the matter, as I understand them from people in the Community. Once the target date of May/June next is missed, every member of the Community is absolved from it. Every member country will have to agree a new date in the light of its own political situations as well as of ours.
The Prime Minister is not answering the vital question, which is not "Can we hold these elections in 1978?" but "Can we hold them by the target date of May/June?" This is where homework becomes so necessary. The Opposition are not equipped to do their homework accurately, and I hope that the Minister of State in replying to the debate will correct me if I am wrong about timing.
We are now near the beginning of the Committee stage of this Bill and there are many clauses still to be discussed. The Bill will then have Report stage, Third Reading and discussion in the other place. Then there will be the Easter period, and we shall consider Lords amendments. We have tried to work out how many days all this will take because, as the Home Secretary rightly said, it is the date of Royal Assent that is crucial. On this calculation the Government will need to allow 10 more days in Committee. If we go through this process allowing a normal period of time, that will mean Royal Assent on about 24th May under a regional list system. If that were so, it would be too late to meet the target date for the regional list system.
In these calculations we have made two assumptions—which are still very much assumptions. The first is that the Government will obtain a timetable motion immediately we return after the Christmas Recess. The second assumption is that the Government will be willing to allocate two days each week in Committee until the Bill has completed its Committee stage in the House of Commons. That would be a much better performance than we have achieved hitherto on the Bill. We have not even achieved two days a week in Committee this Session. The most we have managed to achieve is one and a half days this week and one half-day was an

Opposition day. Therefore, in our calculation bringing Royal Assent to 24th May we have assumed a better performance in the provision of Government time on this Bill than we have hitherto.
The Home Secretary was not very clear on the question of timing before Royal Assent, but what he said about the timing after Royal Assent was most interesting. Speaking of the regional list he thought that the country would need three months after Royal Assent before the date on which we could hold elections. In other words, if we assume that the last date is 30th June within the target area, Royal Assent will have to take place by the end of March.
The question of timing which the Government have not yet answered is "Can we meet the target date on the regional list?" The answer is "Yes, but only if the Government completely change their tactics and priorities." In other words, that can happen only if they allot all the legislative time available in January and February to this Bill, leaving wholly on one side the Scotland and Wales Bills and only if they treat the European Assembly Elections Bill as a matter of absolute urgency.
The Home Secretary did not give us an assurance to that effect this afternoon. Is he prepared to give an assurance that all the legislative time available to the Government in January and February will be allocated to this Bill?

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I was considering that matter on the basis that I was not sure whether the Opposition were saying that they were prepared to support a guillotine motion.

Mr. Hurd: I am able to help the right hon. Gentleman. He will be aware that we believe the guillotine should not be brought forward before we have had an orderly vote on the system. Now that the Government have brought forward, as we suggested this proposal before there is any question of a timetable motion, it is fair to say—and I am supporting what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said in Brussels the other day—it would be easier for the Opposition to provide some form of acquiescence if we come to some form of timetable motion later. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]


That is what my hon. Friend said in Brussels and I am simply passing it on.
Is the Home Secretary saying that in those circumstances the Government will provide all the legislative time available in January and February on this Bill, with no further Committee discussion on the Scotland Bill, the Wales Bill or on other Bills? Will he give this Bill absolute overriding priority?

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I have put to the Committee the time table from the point of view of the Home Office. The Committee must take into account the timetable that will be involved from Royal Assent, and how the Government will handle this matter when we come back in the New Year for wider discussion. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] But I have taken into account the fact that the Opposition have offered support for a guillotine motion.

Mr. Hurd: What I said was that it would be easier now to provide some form of acquiescence. Those were the words I used. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition spoke in Brussels on this topic and gave not a clear pledge but a suggestion of what might be reasonable. If the Home Secretary had read The Guardian, he would have spotted that before.
Although the Home Secretary said something about the period between Royal Assent and the election date, he has failed to answer the question about what will happen to the timetable leading up to Royal Assent. It is only if the Government are able to give a clear undertaking on this point that the argument about timing has any validity at all.

Mr. Edward Heath: Rather than pursuing all this shadow boxing, will the Home Secretary give a clear answer? If there is a guillotine motion when Parliament returns after Christmas, will he say whether we shall get this Bill through with Royal Assent in time to have the elections by the end of June?

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I cannot give that view, but it is important because I gave the figures in terms of a first-past-the-post result. What I am saying is that, given the period of 26 weeks on the first-past-the-post system, the guillotine would have to be pretty sharply brought in, and we

shall have to move quickly to meet the May/June deadline.

Mr. Hurd: The Home Secretary is trying to lead us away from the argument by raising the matter of the guillotine. I have done my best for him on that, but the real problem does not lie with us. It lies with the Lord President who has consistently, in two Sessions of Parliament, denied the Bill the time required. If the Home Secretary is now saying that there has been some repentance, a total change of mind and that the Labour Party and a united Cabinet are determined that as soon as possible after Christmas the House of Commons will consider the Bill and no other Government legislative matters, then the Home Secretary will be in a position to pursue his argument on timing. However, he will not otherwise be in a position to use that argument at all. Those who have swallowed his argument should reflect on these exchanges.
I come now to the matter of the first-past-the-post system and I want to consider the other side of the coin. Supposing that tonight—and it may be the vote will be close—the Committee decides in favour of the first-past-the-post system. I hope that the Government will not then retire into a prolonged fit of inactive gloom on the subject, simply to prove the rather small point that they have been trying to make about timing. A certain amount of mourning and lamentation may be called for, but let it not be too protracted because it will be important for the Government to consider quickly how to reconcile the view of the Committee—which would then have been expressed in favour of first-past-the-post—with the view of both the Government and the House of Commons that there should be orderly direct elections in this country as soon as possible. There are several possibilities here for accelerating the operation of the first-past-the-post system.
In making his case for the regional list system the Home Secretary has understandingly spoken deprecatingly of these suggestions for alternative possibilities. That is natural in debate, but if it turns out that the Committee does not take his advice and goes for the first-past-the-post system, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will look again seriously at some


of the suggestions and, with his experience and that of his Department, he may be able to produce some better ideas.
One suggestion was embodied in the amendment that has been tabled by the hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Roper), to which some of my right hon. and hon. Friends have added their names. Of course, there are difficulties in defining boundaries however it is done, but this seems to be a valid and serious-minded effort to meet the problems. It is a different proposition from the one that the Home Secretary put up solely to knock down again, the suggestion that this should be done privately in smoke-filled rooms in the Home Office.
There is also the amendment that has been put down by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) and others of my hon. Friends. It is a different approach, in that it is more history and less arithmetic than the approach of the hon. Member for Farnworth. Again it is an attempt to solve the problem of achieving a quick first-past-the-post answer.
Another suggestion that has been made—and the Home Secretary can blow upon this, but he should consider it if it becomes necessary—is that the four Boundary Commissions should be asked—this matter was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Surrey (Sir A. Royle)—if there is a vote for the first-past-the-post system, to organise themselves and to make recommendations in the form of a schedule that the House of Commons could consider later in its discussions on the Bill. There have been precedents in other Bills for such preparatory work after Second Reading and, indeed, this afternoon the Home Secretary mentioned the Boundary Commissions and said that they could do preliminary work. This would be much more modest than what has accepted with other Bills, where preparatory work has started after Second Reading. We are not proposing that there should be new staff or new premises, a palace equipped and furnished or that millions should be spent. We are not in that line of country at all. We are suggesting that the existing staff of the Boundary Commissions should, if the vote tonight goes for the first-past-the-post system, turn its mind to this prob-

lem. Indeed, it would be amazing if the staff had not done that already.
Last night the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) intervened, referring to a letter that had been written by Lord Thorneycroft, as Chairman of the Conservative Party, to the Select Committee upon which the right hon. Gentleman and I sat. In the letter Lord Thorneycroft said that the Conservative Party wanted some opportunity for local inquiries and that that was the best way of operating. That letter was written in July 1976. No one could have seriously supposed then that the Government would be inactive and would have held the matter up—with the connivance of the Liberal Party—until now, and that it would be only now that we were faced with this almost intolerable choice.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: The Opposition spokesman owes it to his own colleagues to quote Lord Thorneycroft accurately. He said:
The party feels it essential that there should be opportunities for some local inquiries which would give only an extra three months
Are we now to take it that that is less essential?

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Hurd: Yes, because that letter was written in July 1976 when there appeared to be if not a great length of time, at least adequate time to go through what seemed to us to be the best procedures. We are not in that position now and, unlike the Liberal Party, we are prepared to make some sacrifices of preference to get the Bill through in adequate time.
I have sketched out—and it is only a sketch—the possible ways that have so far been put forward in which the Government could operate the first-past-the-post system. We understand that they do not want to. There are ways in which it could be done much more quickly than the Government have supposed. With any of those ways there would be no more arbitrary or artificial way of drawing constituency boundaries than with the method embodied in the regional list system.
There are always difficulties here and that is why it is such a tragedy that the Government have wasted so much time. If we are up against a time scale, we


must make a choice and the ideas that I have outlined for the Government's consideration are no more arbitrary or objectionable than those proposed with the regional list system. The key to timing is not the choice of system but the political will of the Government to see this through. When we have evidence of that will, which we have not had so far, the matter of timing will fall into place.
I apologise for having spoken so long, but I have set out my personal reasons for preferring the first-past-the-post system for the first round of direct elections. Our support for the Bill is a support for the principle. That support does not depend on any particular result tonight. After all the arguing is over and there has been a clear and a definite decision by the Committee on the system we shall want, and shall work for, early and successful direct elections in this country, for the simple but adequate reason that in our view they will help to bring about a more sensible and democratic Community.

Mr. Gerry Fowler: I am not in any general sense a supporter of proportional representation and I voted against it in the Scotland Bill. I did that for the simple reason that it would be an absurdity to introduce proportional representation at an intermediate level of government while maintaining first past the post, simple majority voting at local government level below and at parliamentary level above.
It is perfectly fair to argue that we could not introduce a proportional representation system without the risk of infecting the whole of the rest of our democratic system, but that argument—which is rightly a defence against proportional representation in the Scotland Bill at this stage—should not affect our argument today. There is a simple mathematical reason for this. It is clear that the smaller the number of persons elected by comparison with the total size of the electorate the more unrepresentative they may be on a simple majority system of voting.
Some of my hon. Friends may argue that this does not matter, that there are overriding principles which require politics to take precedence over mathematics and that, however small the number of those elected by comparison with

the electorate, we should stick to our traditional system because of the risk that we may infect our parliamentary system and be forced into proportional representation willy-nilly. It would be no bad thing if we began to consider more seriously the merits and demerits of various alternative systems of proportional representation as they might apply to the election of Members of the House of Commons. I am not advocating that we adopt any of them, but merely saying that it is about time that we began to consider the matter a little more carefully than we have done in the past.
I do not accept that rejection of the amendment means the inevitable adoption of proportional representation in the election of Members of the House of Commons. If we accept that argument, it means that we have accepted an argument which does not relate to the election of the European Assembly alone. If we then consider the elections to any international assembly of which this country may be part, however few representatives this country had—even if it were as low as five or 10—we should be bound by the logic of that argument to have single-Member constituencies and a first-past-the-post system because otherwise we might infect our system of election to the House of Commons. I regard that argument as utterly and totally absurd.
If we face an election of only 81 Members for the whole United Kingdom and if we are honest—and I do not believe that we should push aside the Prime Minister's arguments in his speech a year ago last October—hon. Members are not totally innumerate and they must realise that a first-past-the-post system would produce very severe distortions in the pattern of representation.
We all know that in Scotland, merely by accident of the day on which the election was held, it would be possible for the Scottish National Party to win all the seats. It would be equally possible for the Labour Party to win all the seats and it is just possible that the Conservative Party would win them all. It all depends on the day on which the elections are held. Only a marginal change in the support for the parties in Scotland which are fairly evenly balanced, could produce such a result.
In Wales, it is likely that the Labour Party would win a majority of, if not all, the seats. That is irrespective of the fact that it may not have an overall majority of the electorate.
In England, it is unlikely that the Labour Party could win all the seats. In some circumstances it may even be unlikely that it would win any of the seats. It is possible that the Conservative Party would take them all. As an English Socialist, I am not happy at the prospect of being completely unrepresented in the European Parliament by any spokesman of my party.
The Labour voters in my constituency would not be very happy about the arguments of some of my hon. Friends which would leave my constituents with their views, whether for or against the Market, utterly unrepresented in the Parliament.
With the first-past-the-post system, we face acute difficulties in drawing boundaries. My right hon. Friend gave an example earlier from the North of England. Let me take my own area. Shropshire cannot, under a first-past-the-post system, produce a single-Member constituency. It has only four parliamentary constituencies and would therefore have to be amalgamated with another county.
It is no good some hon. Members opposite suggesting that we follow the fairly-drawn county boundaries of 1972. Some of the counties would have to combine and the question is with whom. If Shropshire combined with substantial parts of North Staffordshire, I should be delighted because it is likely that we would be represented by a Labour Member. I doubt whether the hon. Members for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen), Ludlow (Mr More) and Shrewsbury (Sir J. Langford-Holt) would be as delighted.
If Shropshire were combined with what was Herefordshire and the northern parts of Worcestershire, I should be in despair and the Labour candidate selected for that constituency would know that, whether he was pro or anti the EEC, there would not be a cat in hell's chance of his being elected. The drawing of boundaries would be all-important. Taking the much broader regional area on the system selected in the Bill, we shall achieve a fair balance of representation
It may be that if we were discussing elections to a governmental assembly, from which a Government were drawn and to which they were responsible, I might not adduce these arguments. It might be that in those circumstances we would say that the risk of infection of our parliamentary system was too great and that we should draw back. But we are not discussing elections to an Assembly of that type. We are discussing elections to an Assembly which is essentially consultative and deliberative and has certain powers which it can use only in extrenzis and which it is unlikely to use. It is an Assembly from which no Government are selected.
Are we really going to say that such an Assembly should have in it—and this is the risk that we are taking—a wholly unrepresentative selection of people as the British contingent? It may be that Conservative voters in Scotland will be represented only by English Conservatives. Labour voters in England may be represented scarcely at all and, if they are represented, it may be mainly by Welshmen. The substantial number of people who vote Liberal may not be represented at all. Scotland could be represented entirely by a party the politics of which the vast majority of hon. Members, as unionists, reject utterly and totally. That would be a disgrace to Parliament and a disgrace to this nation.
I am well aware that some of my hon. Friends would like to reduce the European Assembly elections to absurdity because they wish further to discredit Europe. I fully understand that argument, but I have no doubt that they will recognise that the logic of their position is that in elections to any supra-national assembly the same arguments will be replayed and, if they carry the day today, they will be jeopardising the future of any international body to which we might elect representatives.
If some of my hon. Friends adhere to the notion that we want a wholly European Assembly which does not include simply Western Europe and some adhere to the notion that we should, perhaps not in our political lifetimes, strive towards some system of world government, they must bear in mind that the arguments that they are adduring today will be replayed on those later occasions to the great discredit of this country.
6.0 p.m.
It is high time that we had a more open mind towards what is the appropriate system of election for each level of assembly. No one, I hope, would suggest that we want proportional representation in parish council elections. Few would advocate in the House that we want a system of proportional representation in district elections. However, by the time that we get to the level of this place there may be a reasonable argument. The argument is clear-cut when we get to the level of the European Assembly.
If we are to have a fair chance of representing the view of those who send us here and those who will send their representatives to Europe, whether they be pro- or anti-Common Market, there must be some form of proportional representation from a statistical standpoint. I hope that the amendment will be rejected.

Mr. Heath: In previous debates on this subject I have expressed my views very definitely about the attitude that I hope the House will adopt. To begin with, therefore, I want only briefly to touch on the main issues.
The first issue is the importance of having direct elections. I believe that they are important in themselves. They are important because they will make the European Community a democratic Community in its eyes, in the eyes of its members and in the eyes of the rest of the world. As the powers have already been transferred to the Community institutions, I believe that the European Assembly, which has certain specified responsibilities under the treaties, should carry out those responsibilities through a democratically directly elected Assembly. That is why I believe that the matter is important for the future of the Community.
I also believe that having direct elections is important from the point of view of those who will vote in the elections. Whichever system is adopted, it will make them feel that the Community belongs to them and that they will have a valid say in how the powers and responsibilities that are being transferred are exercised. Moreover, whichever system is adopted, direct elections will enable those most concerned with the activities of the Community—for example, those in industry

and agriculture and those affected by economic and social matters—to lobby their directly elected representatives in the European Assembly and to try to influence them in the action that they take over the other institutions in the Community.
For all those reasons I believe that the Assembly itself is important and that it should be directly elected. It should be seen to be democratic. I hope that everyone on the Opposition Benches who has supported the European policy in the past will agree with my analysis and will regard it as important that we should have a directly elected Assembly.
I now move to the second aspect, which is the timing. It is important that the elections should take place, as the Heads of Government originally agreed, in May-June, or by the latest the end of June and the beginning of July of next year.
That is important for a number of reasons. First, it is important in the carrying out of obligations under the treaty. The European Council and the Council of Ministers have achieved a momentum. We all know that in politics once a momentum has been built up with a specified target date, there is disillusionment and the momentum is lost if the target date is not reached. If it is not reached, it takes a long time before the momentum is regained. That is the position, how-ever much we may wish the momentum to build up. That is a fairly obvious and acknowledged fact in the House. We have seen it constantly with legislation in the past. We know that once the momentum is lost it takes a long time before it can be built up. That is the general position in the Community.
The third aspect that affects us as a House of Commons, a Parliament and a country is the one to which the Community looks to us for leadership. The one thing to which the Community looked to us for leadership when we became a member was the democratisation of the Community. It may differ from us in many respects. For instance, it may not like our attitude towards industry, agriculture or other aspects of Community life, such as foreign affairs. However, it was prepared to accept leadership from us in a number of different spheres. Above all, it expected it, wanted it and asked for it in the democratisation of the Community. However, that is one area above


all in which we have failed the Community so far.
I do not think that there is any point in trying to allocate blame. That is not my purpose tonight in any respect. However, the rest of the member States are ready to have their elections at the time at which, it was agreed, we should all aim. We, the oldest of democracies, with what we like to think is the most efficient democratic system, is the one member of the Community that is unable to fit in with the plans of the rest of the Community to allow it in its own way to become democratic. I find that a lamentable aspect of our general approach.

Mr. Skinner: If the other European nations were avidly looking for leadership in democracy from this country, why is it that they have tried to impose their system of election upon us? Why do not they accept our first-past-the-post system?

Mr. Heath: They have not tried to impose any system upon us. If they were trying to do so, we should not be debating these matters tonight. The question of which is the best system is something that we discuss among ourselves. When finally we come to the stage when the Community tries to achieve one system for the whole of its elections in the same way as we have one system for the whole of the Westminster parliamentary elections, it will be a matter of negotiation within the Community as to which system we use.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: No, leadership.

Mr. Heath: If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to interrupt, perhaps he will rise to his feet.

Mr. Powell: Certainly. If the Continent of Europe wishes to learn from us, it will imitate this House. It will not seek to impose its notions or ideas on elections upon our better understanding. If the argument is from leadership, it is with the practices and the past and traditions of the House.

Mr. Heath: With great respect, the right hon. Gentleman does not have a valid argument. Leadership does not consist of saying "You will follow exactly what we have done". Leadership consists of trying to bring about an agreed

approach by a Community of nine nations that is advancing along a new path together. That is the leadership that it expects from us.

Mr. Philip Whitehead: If there is to be that agreed approach—I accept that it should be agreed—surely it will come at the second election and not at the first. Why, therefore, should we embark on a quite different system for one election only, which is totally untried and about which many people throughout the country have, quite rightly, a great suspicion?

Mr. Heath: That comes within the next group of points with which I wish to deal. First, there is the importance of our playing our part at the time that has been agreed by all the other members of the Community, for which they themselves are ready and for which our Prime Minister has said he will use his best endeavours.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: He has not.

Mr. Heath: The right hon. Gentleman may not have done so, but I do not wish to debate that either. My purpose is to achieve direct elections for the Community in accordance with the timetable to which we have aspired. Even if the right hon. Gentleman has not carried out his undertaking to the utmost, I do not see why we as a party should adopt a procedure that will make the situation even worse. That is the next argument to which I shall address myself.
I turn to the question of the system. I have said from the beginning that I do not believe that the first-past-the-post system is suitable, for a variety of reasons. We have accepted it in this country where we have 635 seats, many of them being returned with a very small majority with electorates of 50,000 to 60,000. We accept the system because we have said that there will be swings and roundabouts and that it will roughly work out all right. If we look at the end of The Times handbook at the conclusion of a General Election and note the number of marginal seats on each side, we see that the system roughly works out all right. However, with only 81 seats and constituencies of more than half a million, I do not believe that people are prepared to accept that 81 seats can be decided by 10 or 11 votes in each of the great majority of seats.


That is why as a basic approach to the matter I do not accept that the first-past-the-post system is suitable for only 81 seats with electorates of half a million or more.
My second point is that the European Assembly is not a body that is to form Governments, support Governments and dismiss Governments. It is there as a representative body, in the same way as the Senate or the House of Representatives in Congress in Washington is there as a representative body.

Mr. John Mendelson: Oh.

Mr. Heath: I think that the hon. Gentleman wishes to say that Congress also has powers of legislation but, leaving that aside, it is first and foremost there as a representative body, and the European Assembly is there as a representative body. If the European Assembly is a representative body, the most important thing is to make it representative, and that we cannot do on a first-past-the-post basis of 81 seats and an electorate of more than 500,000 for each. Therefore, we must turn to a different form of elections for its Members.
I do not believe that it is a valid argument to say that because we, the Westminster Parliament, with an entirely different purpose, have been prepared to accept a system which can undeniably be shown from time to time to be unfair and unrepresentative, the rest of Europe must follow it. Indeed, there are many people in this country—and I suspect many in the House—who are asking themselves whether the Westminster system operates quite as perfectly as we have been led to believe by the academics who write the books. When we look around the world and see that no country to which we have given the Westminster system has kept it, we might at least ask ourselves whether we are perfect in as many respects as we should like to think. But that is a separate aspect of the problem.
We now come to the question of the alternative system to first past the post. I wanted to see an added-Member system—

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: The right hon. Gentleman gave the analogy of the United States House of Representatives. Is not the proper analogy with the United

States Senate? Why is it that the system there produces a representative spread of parties and personalities when it is very similar to first past the post?

Mr. Heath: It is because there is a very large number of seats. [Interruption.] Indeed, there are 435. The Americans have also been prepared to work on that system because of the swings and roundabouts. In Europe, the distortions are obvious of having an election in this country mid-term in a Government's unpopularity, with our seeing one party sweep into power in Europe from this country, the whole business being reversed at a later stage, and the minority parties being excluded. That is not a justifiable system. I would have hoped that most people would accept that as well.

Mr. Rathbone: May I remind my right hon. Friend that built into the American system for the election of Members of the House of Representatives is a complicated mathematical formula to make the system simple, so that there is reasonably precise representation by each representative of the same number of votes in each State?

Mr. Heath: That is part of the Ameri can system.
I move on to the alternative to first past the post, which is a system of proportional representation. I would have preferred one which had added Members, but that was not accepted by the Select Committee, though it has been worked successfully in European countries.
Another aspect that I find disturbing is the assumption in some quarters—not so much in the House, but outside—that any system other than first past the post cannot be understood by the British electorate. I see no reason to believe that. Other electorates apparently can understand their systems perfectly well, and I see no reason why the British electorate should not be able to do so. I am convinced that it can, and so is the electorate.
6.15 p.m.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Oxon (Mr. Hurd), who made an impressive speech from the Opposition Front Bench, believes that it is unwise to take two steps at a time, as he described it, by introducing the elections and having


a different system from the first past the post. My judgment differs from my hon. Friend's here. In politics the opportunity to make a change comes when one is making a new approach, and the elections to Europe are a new approach. They give the opportunity to make a change in the electoral system. I agree with the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Fowler) that if we do not make a change on this occasion we shall have a battle about the matter at each election, and all the forces that are against making the change in any case will feel themselves reinforced.
My hon. Friend also said that he believed that there would not be a unified European system in the election after this, that it might take some time. On that, I might well share my hon. Friend's views, but if I did it would only reinforce me in the belief that we should make a change on this occasion. The thought of going on with election after election to the European Assembly on a first-past-the-post basis, and the represenation swinging wildly from one side to the other at election after election, only convinces me all the more that we should change the system now to one that is more representative than first-past-the-post. On those points I disagree with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Spearing: The right hon. Gentleman said a little earlier that the public should be able to understand the system. But does he not agree that in South-East England not only would there be 60 candidates and one vote per person but probably candidate A could receive more votes than candidate B but, because of the carry-over system, B would be elected? Does he not think that that would be difficult to explain to the public?

Mr. Heath: No. I think that the proportional representation aspects of elections can be perfectly well explained to the general public.
As I have said, I should have preferred the system of added Members. I think that that would have been a better system, but if we must choose between first-past-the-post and a system of regional lists I have no doubt where my vote will go. It will be for the regional list, and that is where I hope the vote of

a majority of hon. Members will go, for the reasons I have already given.
I want to pose one other question to the members of my party. What disadvantage is there to us on this side of the Chamber in supporting the regional list system? Of course, there are problems with multi-Member constituencies. There are problems with single-Member constituencies with an electorate of over 500,000. There are problems whichever electoral system one has. But what disadvantage is there to us on the Conservative Benches in having a regional list system?
It is said that such a system would mean discussion about candidates. It would, but that would happen with constituencies of 500,000 voters embodying eight or nine present constituencies. Therefore, I ask myself and the party to which I belong "What disadvantage is there to us in supporting a regional list system tonight?" I cannot see one disadvantage to us.

Mr. Robert Adley: I am listening with care to my right hon. Friend's arguments. I voted for what might be called the Mackintosh amendment on the Scottish Assembly, but I am thinking of not voting the same way tonight. I should like to answer my right hon. Friend's frank question about the advantage to our party by telling him of the point that one of my party workers put to me a few days ago. He told me" You said that local government reorganisation was good. You said that we should change and improve the system. You said that we should make the Health Service changes, and that they were good. You voted for the water service changes. All those changes were advocated by you on the basis that they would improve the system." I found that a very difficult point to answer. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will tell me what I should say to my constituents.

Mr. Heath: My hon. Friend must reconcile himself to the fact that as his constituent is so obviously sceptical about his advice on any subject there is no reason to believe that he will accept what my hon. Friend says on any matter. I shall therefore continue my argument along the path that I have mapped out for myself. Apart from the disadvantage


from which my hon. Friend suffers, I see no aspect in which the regional list would be disadvantageous to this party. On the other hand, I see disadvantages, and very strong disadvantages, in the other courses.
Here I come to the question of timing. If there is a guillotine—I would support a guillotine because of the importance of this subject, which I have already discussed—I do not see, in relation to what my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Oxon said, that it is necessary for the Government to give up the whole of their legislative time in order to get this Bill through. That might be understood as meaning that this was blackmail on the Government to give up their devolution Bills. I do not think that my hon. Friend meant to imply that. No. The Government will have to give up, of course, a proper time under the guillotine for this particular Bill. I would hope that the Home Secretary would have sufficient influence with his right hon. Friend the Lord President, who is listening at the other end of the Bench, to ensure that that happened and that the legislation was fitted in together.
If that is the case, I have no doubt at all that elections on the regional list can be carried through by the time appointed by the European Council of Heads of Government. I hope that the Home Secretary will endorse that. But in being practical, I must say that I see no possibility at all of getting those elections with the first-past-the-post arrangement.
I have already said that shadow boxing was going on. Undoubtedly it is going on. We in the House of Commons know that the House will just not accept either of the amendments on the Notice Paper, one of them in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson), setting out a list of potential constituencies for the first-past-the-post system.
I would go further, from our experience in ordering constituency boundaries after a Boundary Commission. If there is a Boundary Commission, will the Home Secretary's right hon. and hon. Friends below the Gangway accept 81 constituencies on the nod from the Boundary Commission in a Bill of this kind? Not for one moment. Are we on the Conserva-

tive Benches, for that matter, or are those on the Opposition Front Bench, prepared to give an undertaking that we will accept on the nod what comes out of the Boundary Commission on 81 European seats? Not for one moment. Nor do I suggest that it would be right to do so, either. When one is starting on a new allocation of constituencies, it is natural that the House of Commons will want to debate probably each of the 81 of them at the time.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: What makes my right hon. Friend think that either this House of Commons or indeed, the electorate accepts the present boundaries of economic regions? In many areas they are regarded as an absurdity. Why does he think that those are likely to be accepted as rational grounds on which to form an electoral system?

Mr. Heath: Again, there is a very practical reason. As the Home Secretary said, regional boundaries were fixed 13 or 14 years ago, and they have been accepted by Governments of both parties, by majority Governments and minority Governments. Although my hon. Friend is always very active, I have not noticed that he has attempted to introduce any Bills to try to change regional boundaries. These, therefore, are something which is in existence and can be accepted, if there is good will on the part of the Opposition to get the Bill through.
I believe that in this situation it is a matter of judgment. I do not believe that either solution is perfect. I come to the point that the elections themselves are important and that the timing is important. Whereas there is a perfectly good possibility of getting the timing that we want with the regional list system if the Government now carry out their proper responsibilities, I do not believe that there is any practical, realistic possibility of getting it with the first-past-the-post system That is leaving aside the point that I personally believe that the first-past-the-post system is entirely unsuitable for this form of election in any case.
What I hope to see is that, having carried through a system of PR, when it comes to discussions about a permanent system for Europe we shall have a much greater voice in settling that by having already used a system of PR than we would have if we just stayed with the


first-past-the-post system, which the whole of Europe would say was not representative.
Therefore, I hope that tonight the amendment will be defeated and that the Government will go ahead with the regional list system with the utmost speed.

Mr. Bryan Gould: The debate on proportional representation is very often presented as one in which all the forces of fairness, justice, reason and sweetness and light are in favour of reform, whereas only tired old party hacks, who see party advantage in the present system, oppose it, but I believe that once that debate is joined, and joined properly, we shall find that there are many and considerable advantages in favour of our present system, advantages to be claimed not simply on behalf of party politicians but on behalf of good government and the people of this country.
Those advantages, which I shall try to indicate briefly, are, some of them well known, and some less well known in the debate which has taken place so far. They are, of course, to the effect that our present system at least provides, in most cases, certainty. I talk of the Westminster context for the time being. It produces a system in which we are able to avoid the disadvantages and the weaknesses of coalition Government. It means that we can avoid in most circumstances the politicking that takes place after the voting has happened, the politicking between the politicians to sort out who should be the Government. It means that we can avoid what happens in some other countries—the fate of having a permanent and virtually irremovable Government.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Let me get this quite clear. Is the hon. Member saying that in fairness, equity and democracy he prefers a minority elected Government—unrepresentative, in other words—to a coalition Government which is representative?

Mr. Gould: I shall come in a moment to the point as to whether the system which the hon. Gentleman prefers can really be justified in terms of fairness and accurate representation of the people of this country. What I am saying at pre-

sent—I direct my remarks to the Westminster context for the time being—is that there are many considerable advantages to be obtained from our present system, and that these advantages have not yet been drawn out in any of the debates which have taken place.
I am in the process of saying that one of the advantages is that in most circumstances we avoid the uncertainties of coalition Government. One of those uncertainties is simply that extremist parties will be encouraged, by virtue of the fragmentation that will result if we have proportional representation. Where-as one of the strengths of our present system is that anybody who wishes to be active in national politics is in effect compelled to enter into the main stream of politics, under a proportional representation system those people will have the encouragement and incentive to form themselves into smaller groups which will inevitably reflect more and more extreme positions.
There are, of course, other examples and instances in which our present system is infinitely superior to the PR system This can be summarised by saying that under our present system a voter is able to cast his vote directly for the candidate he wishes to elect, whereas under almost any proportional representation system that one can imagine he can never be absolutely sure what will happen to his vote after he has cast it. There is a process by which his vote is then diverted to some other candidate whom he cannot identify in advance.
The one disadvantage that is claimed for our present system is that it is unfair. Of course, those who make this complaint are those who maintain that it is particularly unfair to them. That is, of course, those in the Liberal Party.
That unfairness argument begs the question, because we cannot be sure how people would vote; we cannot be sure whether they would vote in exactly the same way under a different system as they vote under the present system. Let us look at the Liberal Party, for example If we had a PR system, it is surely likely that many of those who currently vote Liberal might, for various reasons, vote in different directions. They might vote for another minority grouping which would be encouraged to come into existence. Also, if they were really confronted


with the possibility that a Liberal vote would count, voting Liberal might be the last thing they would actually do.
The unfairness argument also begs the question of precisely what electoral system we are currently operating. If one starts from the viewpoint that we are operating a system that is simply a national popularity poll, of course it is unfair that 6 million Liberals are underrepresented, but if we are really running a system—it is what we have always done—whereby communities elect representatives to Westminster to represent those communities, the fact is, harsh though it may be for Liberal Members to accept, that only 13 communities wish to be represented by a Liberal Member.

Mr. Russell Johnston: rose—

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Gould: I am now leaving this point. I simply wished to begin with a brief indication of how I felt. It was meant as no more than that, and other arguments are involved in the debate.
I recognise that what we are debating today is not the question of proportional representation but the question of proportional representation for the European elections. I therefore wish to address myself not to those hon. Members who want PR in general but to those who are agnostic on the issue but who wish to look at it in the context of direct elections.

Mr. David Penhaligon: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the Committee whether he represents the 42 per cent. of the electorate which voted for him or the 58 per cent. which did not?

Mr. Gould: The fact is that 42 per cent is a higher proportion than anyone else received. There is no question that a Liberal candidate in that election could claim to be here in my place.

Mr. Cyril Smith: Answer the question. The hon. Gentleman does not represent a majority, since 58 out of 100 did not want him as their MP.

The First Deputy Chairman (Sir Myer Galpern): The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) knows the rules well enough and knows that he cannot make sedentary interventions. If hon. Members would address the Chair it would avoid

unnecessary interventions and interjections.

Mr. Gould: I am addressing my remarks to you, Sir Myer. In the context of direct elections—

Mr. John Wells: Since the electorate of Rochdale did exactly the same, are not the sedentary interruptions on my right pure humbug?

Mr. Gould: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
In the context of direct elections it is sometimes argued that the advantages of the first-past-the-post system would not apply. I believe that there are two main reasons for this, both of which have been explained in earlier contributions to the debate. The first is that in European elections we should not be attempting to form a government. Therefore, I assume that it matters less, that the British people in an election of this sort would not reach a clear conclusion, and that it would not be important that a majority should be formed.
Second, it is argued that in constituencies of such a size, and with multi-Member constituencies and so on, there would be no pretence that European Members of Parliament would have the same sort of direct link with their constituents as we aspire to in Westminster elections.
In that case it is argued that, by abandoning that pretence, we can afford to have multi-Member constituencies where the constituent goes to one Member who says "Yes, I agree with you but none of my colleagues do". The constituent then goes to each Member in turn and is given the same answer. Therefore, it is argued that we can afford to have party lists whereby the party machines determine in the end who should be elected and who should not. We can afford to have what I have already referred to as the diversion of votes whereby the votes cast for one candidate will end by electing another. Indeed, it could be a candidate who differed in an important way from the candidate for whom the vote was originally cast.

Mr. Gerry Fowler: The system proposed in the Bill does not have a party list of the type that my hon. Friend describes. While there would be a list of


candidates for each party, those who would be elected would not be those who were numbered highest by the party selection committee but those candidates for each party who individually received the highest number of votes in the region. That avoids the weakness that is often seen in our parliamentary system.

Mr. Gould: I agree with my hon. Friend. What he says is correct. I do not, however, necessarily believe that that eliminates the element of party involvement in drawing up the list. It is that precise point which is the weakness when we consider what happens to a vote once it is cast. A vote cast for one individual on the list then becomes used and is added to the advantage of all other people on the list, even if one were determined not to vote for anyone else on the list.
This argument simply resolves itself into the argument that, because direct elections are not really intended to do what normal democratic elections do—that is, because they are deficient in precisely those important democratic elements which we regard as important in our own national life—we can afford for that reason to have an electoral system that pays no attention to those elements, and, in many respects, does violence to them. In other words, because direct elections do not really matter in the sense that they do not involve any real change in governmental functions, the voter does not really care so much—so the theory runs—about what happens to his vote. That is one logic that might lie behind PR for direct elections.
There is another alternative logic which I and my hon. Friends, and anyone who supports the Prime Minister's view of the way in which the Community should develop, find equally distasteful. That is the logic that direct elections are not just a piece of window dressing, as I suggested a moment ago, but are designed to create a new supra-national tier of government. On that assumption direct elections make sense, in that the British elections would in no way be meant to produce a British national delegation which could be regarded as representing the British national interest or the British people. On the contrary, the object would be simply to produce a British component whose size and composition would have no meaning in the British

context and which would only be significant when added to form parts of a larger European grouping. In that situation it would simply not be proper for the British people to concern themselves with, or take a view of, the result of their voting—at least not in a British context—because it simply would not matter.
It would only matter if the British delegations were added to a much larger European grouping. That logic is the logic of European union. For those who espouse it, I thank them, because it at least leaves us in a clear position, and we understand what they are arguing for, but no one who is opposed to European union can possibly accept that logic.
Therefore, I would say that of the two possible features of PR one simply downgrades those elections and reveals that they are a worthless and expensive piece of window-dressing, while the other inevitably involves us in the creation of a supra-national tier of government. In other words, the logic of PR in this context is the logic of direct elections themselves with the same flaws and the same objections, in the opinion of my hon. Friends and myself.
Since neither of the two possible arguments for PR in this context can commend themselves to myself or my hon. Friends I urge them to vote for the amendment.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Gould) who has put his argument, as always, with characteristic lucidity and persuasiveness. When I spoke during the Second Reading debate in July I said:
I see, therefore, the choice of procedures as primarily a practical matter, a matter of giving effect to the principle of direct elections in a workable and democratic way."—[Official Report, 7th July 1977; c. 1494, Vol. 934.]
The question of principle is settled. It is underpinned by four main considerations—first, the treaty commitment. Although Article 138 imposes no timetable it clearly envisages progress to direct elections and an obligation on signatories to accept that principle and work to that end.
Secondly, the principle is rooted in the basic philosophy of representative institutions in a democratic society which requires a direct nexus between the electors and the elected. Thirdly, there is


the Government's undertaking to do their best to achieve direct elections by the summer of 1978 and whatever we may think of the Government here at home, when they speak in the international context they speak in the name of the nation.
Fourth, since that speech in July there is the additional consideration of two decisive endorsements by the House of Commons in the Second Reading debates. Therefore the principle of direct elections is res judicata and we are now concerned with practical matters, the mechanics and methods of best giving effect to the principle.
It is in my view important that we make our decision today within the framework of the practical matter that we have to decide, that is the procedures best calculated to give effect as punctually as possible to the principle of direct elections for the initial term and probably for the initial term only. That is the demarcation of our necessarily limited task today.
It follows from this that we have to identify the issues which are not in point today and accept their exclusion from our consideration. First and foremost, this is not a debate on the general principle and philosophy of proportional representation, its merits and demerits as compared with our traditional system. Not only is it not a debate on these matters in the broad context of political philosophy—

Mr. John Mendelson: What is it about?

Sir D. Walker-Smith: I am coming to say exactly what it is about. The hon. Member must try to follow an argument. I must say to the hon. Gentleman, not for the first time perhaps, and certainly not for the last, that, in the words of Dr. Johnson I can give him an explanation but I fear that I cannot give him an understanding.
Nor is this a debate on the propriety or otherwise of a future application of some such system to our elections to the House of Commons. Nor, indeed, is it even a debate on the propriety or otherwise of a future application of some such system to future elections in the European Parliament.

Mr. John Mendelson: rose—

Sir D. Walker-Smith: If in these few moments the hon. Gentleman has achieved an understanding I shall give way with even greater pleasure than usual.

Mr. John Mendelson: I am anxious to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman a question because I remember his past on these matters. Is his anxiety to exclude any substantive consideration of the entire issue that we are debating perhaps brought about by his desire that we should forget his past views on these matters? Does he not agree that many of those who have approached us, and certainly the Liberal Party, regard this debate as being very much a dress rehearsal for the introduction of proportional representation into this country? Why is he misleading the Committee?

Sir D. Walker-Smith: My optimism was clearly ill-founded. Not only has the hon. Gentleman not succeeded in finding and understanding, but he provides no evidence that he ever will. I am proud of my past in this matter. I invite the hon. Gentleman to read again—I do not suppose that he has read it yet—my speech of 7th April 1975 in which these matters were spelt out with, if I may modestly say so, a clarity and particularity which would enable even the hon. Member, with constant perusal and diligence, to begin to have the glimmering of an understanding. For good measure perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to read—since I am sure he did not listen to it—my speech of a week or two ago on the question of powers. I must resist the temptation to instruct further the hon. Gentleman because I would not like to take up too much time.
Attempts to elevate or expand the scope of this discussion from its limited and practical purpose to a generalised debate and to hypothetical situations is neither justified nor helpful. As to elections to the House of Commons, there is no doubt a case for a future change to some system of proportional representation, and that case has its sincere and staunch supporters. Equally, there is a case for the retention of our traditional and well-tried system, and that also has its supporters, no less staunch and no less sincere.
6.45 p.m.
I say to both these categories of right hon. and hon. Members that their case


in respect of elections to the House of Commons is not decided, or even compromised, by the decision we make tonight. So far as concerns the issue of any change in our method of parliamentary elections to this House, that is an issue on a different plane, a different kettle of fish altogether.
On the separate and different issue of the possibility and propriety of proportional representation for our elections to the House of Commons, I say this, that I believe in the evolutionary processes of our unwritten constitution. One can trace the development and broadening of our pattern of representation, in particular for the one-and-a-half centuries since the arguments proceeding the Reform Act of 1832—and I must accept the melancholy fact that I have actively participated in these processes for more than a fifth of that time. I do not, therefore, say that we shall never have a system of proportional representation. As Sir Winston sagely observed in another context, it is an unwise politician who ever uses the word "Never".
I do say that proportional representation for this House should not be sought to be introduced by a side wind, as a claimed corollary and allegedly logical consequence of a Bill dealing with a wholly different election. It could properly he introduced, in my submission, only by the direct expression of the unfettered will of the House of Commons, as representing the electors, guided, assisted, and fortified, one would hope, by the detailed consideration and calm judgment of a Speaker's Conference expressly convened to consider this issue.
As for future elections to a European Parliament, the position, though different, is equally clear. So far from the methods in this Bill constituting a binding or even a persuasive authority for elections to the House of Commons, they do not even constitute such authority for succeeding elections to the European Parliament. This is because Article 138 calls for a uniformity of election procedures. That requirement has been waived for the first election, but member States will seek to implement it for the second and subsequent elections. It follows, therefore, that the decision today is a short-term one, liable to change and

neither binding in perpetuity nor even setting a pattern for the future.
This being so, two opposing arguments can be and are advanced. The advocates of proportional representation say that a uniform procedure will almost certainly involve an application of proportional representation and therefore we should start now. The advocates of the status quo say that, since material change is probable, it is best to seek to restrict it to the substantial change that may become inevitable for the second and subsequent elections. Again, both arguments have some substance, but it is right to point out to the proponents of the first argument that proportional representation can and does assume a wide variety of form.
Time, fortunately, forbids a description of the various methods of election in the member States; but it is a pattern of considerable diversity. That being so, it is virtually impossible to anticipate the structure that a uniform system will assume. That means that if we are departing from our traditional system now, the danger of a double change within a relatively short time must be very real.
I come then to the question—against that background and that definition of the issues—which we have to decide, namely what it is best now to do. In my speech in July I said:
there are obviously merits and drawbacks in both systems and … a fairly close balance between them."—[Official Report, 7th July 1977; Vol. 934, c. 1491.]
Basically, I concluded that although the regional list system might result in a fairer representation between parties, at least on a strictly mathematical basis, nevertheless that advantage would be secured at the expense of local representation. Assembly constituencies, on the other hand, would have the advantage of being a less radical departure from our traditional system and would give a greater degree of local or quasi-local representation.
What brought the regional list system at that time into fairly close balance, in my view, on an analysis of the contents of the Bill, was its apparent advantage in respect of the time factor. Everything was specified in the Bill—the composition of the electoral regions and the electoral procedures—whereas the Bill as drafted envisages and requires detailed


and fairly complex post-statutory procedures which might be time-consuming and would prevent any reasonable expectation of meeting the target.
The time factor, though not giving rise to any strictly legal obligations, is important in respect of good faith and reasonable consideration for other member States. I believe that that assessment, including the conclusion as to the time factor, was a correct judgment in the context of the Bill as drafted, and as matters then stood only a fortnight after its publication. Now, five months later, it is possible and appropriate to make a further appraisal, taking account not only of the contents of the Bill as presented but of the changes and improvements that the will of the Committee can insert into it. The main factors are those of time and practicality. The question is: is it possible to amend the Bill so as to create viable and appropriate Assembly constituencies with voting according to our traditional method avoiding the relatively complex and lengthy procedures of the Boundary Commission at present enshrined in the Bill?
Is it possible to define those constituencies now and schedule them to the Bill, thus putting them, in this respect, on the same footing as the electoral regions proposed in Schedule 3? To answer that, we have to look at the requisites of Assembly constituencies as defined in the Bill. They are defined in Schedule 2, Part II, on page 17:
In Great Britain—

(a) each Assembly constituency shall consist of an area that includes two or more parliamentary constituencies; and
(b) no parliamentary constituency shall be included partly in one Assembly constituency and partly in another.

The electorate of any Assembly constituency in Great Britain shall be as near the electoral quota as is reasonably practicable having regard, where appropriate, to special geographical considerations.
[Interruption.]

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. There is far too much conversation going on in the Chamber.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: There are therefore three specified requisites, and they reflect the basic requirements of fair and acceptable electoral representation, that is, a reasonable congruity of interest between the component parts of a constituency, and a reasonable parity of representation between constituencies.

Those requisites do not extend to treating local government frontiers as absolute barriers, nor, logically, should they do so, since matters of concern to the European Parliament will not usually turn on question of local government.
These being the requisites specified in the Bill, deriving from considerations of reasons and principle, can they be satisfied by amendment of the Bill so as to provide for scheduling Assembly constituencies which satisfy those requirements? In my view, the answer is "Yes". It is an answer which fortunately can be based not just on hypothesis or surmise, but on proof and demonstration.
We know that it can be done if the House so wills, because we have at least one amendment already on the Order Paper—quite apart from what the Government might reasonably be expected to initiate if the Committee tonight expresses its preference for Assembly constituencies rather than a regional list system—which does this very thing.
I refer to Amendment No. 78, which provides for a new schedule defining the initial composition of Assembly constituencies. This schedule does exactly what is required of it by the Bill. It defines Assembly constituencies in accordance with the number to which we are entitled in the European Parliament and in a form which satisfies both the specified requisites of the Bill and the general requirements of reasonable congruity of interest and parity of representation.
Of course, it would be nice to have smaller constituencies, but that is not possible under our entitlement. We can, however have much smaller constituencies with a much greater congruity of interest than the electoral regions proposed in the Bill. They would not be so large as wholly to forgo local or quasi-local identity, which the electoral regions unfortunately and inescapably must forgo, with the inevitable consequence of a diminished interest on the part of the citizen in the elections and thereby in the work of the European Parliament.
Of course, there will be no precise mathematical parity of representation. That is impossible in all circumstances. But the point that the Committee should register is that the variation would be proportionately far less than in our present constituency electorates in the House


of Commons, and the parity proportionately far greater than the Boundary Commission has been able to achieve through three decades of work and effort for our Parliamentary constituencies.
Anyone who doubts that proposition, including the hon. Member for Penistone, should look at the Home Secretary's catalogue of electorates in reply to my Written Question in the summer. Therefore, we have the ground work—the basis—for Assembly constituencies which would meet the requirements not only of the Bill but of proper electoral representation.
I submit this conclusion to the Committee. The decision that we make today should be made within the framework of the initial elections to the European Parliament without prejudice to any longer-term considerations which may arise for the electoral pattern in the United Kingdom or for subsequent elections to the European Parliament. That decision, within that framework, should aim at achieving the highest common factor of parity and practicality.
We now know—that of which we could not be certain on the presentation of the Bill—that a practical solution based on a reasonable parity of representation can be achieved on the basis of Assembly constituencies with our familar voting procedures. We know, too, that this can be done within substantially the same parameters of time as apply to the regional list system and that we are therefore, in good conscience and good faith, entitled to make our judgment tonight free from the constraint which would arise if one method could enable us to conform to the undertaking given as to time and the other could not.
These being the material considerations, in my view it is clear where logic leads us. I respectfully invite the Committee to follow that path and to take the opportunity afforded of establishing Assembly constituencies supported and sustained on the twin pillars of parity and practicality.

Mr. Douglas Jay: The speech by the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) was rather like one of those long detective novels in which one does not find the answer until the last sentence.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: But detective authors always get it right.

Mr. Jay: If I understood the right hon. and learned Gentleman aright, I congratulate him on catching the criminal at the very end.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) rightly said that what is proposed by the Government represents a revolutionary change in our electoral system for purely short-term and irrelevant reasons. Why, after all, are we being asked tonight to introduce one variant of the proportional representation system into these elections? It is for two reasons, neither of which seems to me convincing or justifying so sweeping a change.
7.0 p.m.
The first is ostensibly to enable direct elections to go ahead in the spring of next year, though, as the Prime Minister said, there is absolutely no sanctity in that date. Indeed, as the hon. Member for Mid-Oxon (Mr. Hurd) made clear today, it is doubtful whether, even if we adopt that system, it will make any difference to the timetable.
Secondly, and basically, the whole of this plan is being foisted upon us because the Liberal Party wants to introduce proportional representation into the normal electoral system of this country. To my mind, that is what we are fundamentally being asked to vote on today.
I should like briefly to look at some of the basic arguments for and against a proportional representation system of this kind. But, from that point of view, I address one question to the Liberal Party to which I have not yet had an answer. If proportional representation is the best, fairest and most defensible system in principle, why did not the Liberal Government introduce it when they had a large majority in the House of Commons for eight years from 1906 to 1914? We have not had a convincing answer to that question. Until we get one, I think that we are entitled to be a bit sceptical about the purity of the Liberal Party's motives.
I agree that there is one sound, theoretical argument for proportional representation, but there are arguments on the other side. If the object of an electoral system is to give arithmetical equality between party voting in the country and


party representation in this Chamber, that can be achieved by proportional representation, and that is certainly one important element in the argument. However, it is not the whole argument.
The first disadvantage of proportional representation in principle that I see is that there is something to be said for a system by which the man who gets the most votes wins the election. The late Sir Winston Churchill, I believe, described proportional representation as a system by which the man at the bottom of the poll could get elected. That is not wholly irrelevant to our discussion.
Secondly, there is a good deal to be said for having only one Member of Parliament responsible for each constituency. It makes responsibilities clear and avoids confusion and duplication.
Thirdly, there is something to be said for everybody elected to the Assembly or Parliament being elected by the same method, not having some who are elected by a simple majority and others who are elected by an arithmetical system which, at any rate, some people do not understand. If all those three principles are to be accepted, it can only be done, so far as I can see, by the first-past-the-post system.

Mr. John Roper: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as we already know that in other parts of the Community people will be elected on the proportional representation system, therefore his third argument does not seem to hold on this occasion?

Mr. Jay: I am simply saying that in this country, or anywhere else, the fulfilment of each of those three principles—for each of which I think there is something to be said—can only be achieved by the first-past-the-post system. If my hon. Friend will reflect on that, he will see that point is valid. I am not suggesting that this argument in itself is conclusive. However, I suggest that it is one of the considerations to be weighed against the argument of mathematical equality.
There is another and even more powerful argument which leads me to question the basic argument for proportional representation in any form. The fundamental assumption of those who back

proportional representation—and I know they do it sincerely and fervently—is that the electorate votes exclusively for a party. It is true that the electors vote very largely for a party—and they can do that under our present system—but I do not believe that they always vote exclusively for a party.
More important still, when we are elected under the present system we regard ourselves as representing all our constituents and not just those who have voted for us. In a real sense we represent our local party and, indeed, our national party, but in a real sense also we represent all our constituents. I think that most hon. Members will agree that when our constituents come to our surgeries with their housing or pension problems it never occurs to us to ask whether they vote Labour, Conservative, National Front or anything else.
The curious, as it seems to me, hybrid Members of the Assembly of Parliament who emerge as a result of some mathematical manipulation from the PR system will feel themselves not indebted to and representative of their constituents to the same extent, but rather of the party and the party machine. It seems to me that what these representatives will be interested in between elections, particularly if they are to be paid the vast sums that have been mentioned, is who is to compile the next regional party list. In reality they will be to a great extent representatives not of their constituents but of the party machine. I do not believe that that is a desirable change either in EEC elections or in our own elections here.
If anyone doubts that, let him look at the Bill to see the lengths to which the authors of the Bill, who have shown enormous ingenuity, have been forced to go to conceal the fact that they are really making the party label the decisive test. On page 30 in Schedule 4 there is a paragraph entitled
Elimination of plural nominations and identical campaign descriptions.
That is only the title of the paragraph, and we then find that the regional officer responsible for the elections has the right to alter the compaign description. Yet it is the campaign description and not the candidate for whom, in effect, under this system the electorate will, to a great extent, be voting.
The question has been raised of the independent candidates in this election. I have always believed that it is a fundamental of genuine democracy that people can start new parties, or stand as independents, or whatever they like as long as they can satisfy the conditions of paying a minimum deposit. That always seems one respect in which our system is superior to the one-party State system.
Recognising that, the authors of the Bill, again with some ingenuity, allow for independents to stand. Indeed, on page 60 there is an interesting hypothetical independent candidate who is described as
Independent: Lawton, George Langley Viscount Lawton, of Castle Scarlet, Blankshire.
He sounds as though he is probably a Euro-Communist, but I shall not follow that any further.
Is an independent a member of a group? If each independent is a member of a group of independents, one gets the odd effect that votes cast for a Euro-Communist who describes himself as an independent will be added to those of a crypto-Fascist describing himself as a Euro-Communist.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: rose—

Mr. Jay: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to complete this, though it is not my main argument.
If the Home Secretary argues, as I expect he will, that the independents will not be allowed to add their votes to one another, we are brought to the conclusion that this somewhat penalises independents, because whereas members of a group can gain by other people's votes, the independent group cannot do so.

Mr. George Cunningham: Is not the situation that it will be up to individual independent candidates whether each of them wishes to stand as an individual independent candidate, or whether any two of them wish to band together and call themselves independent, or anti-Market, or pro-Market group, or whatever? They can choose that for themselves.

Mr. Jay: If I understand the Bill aright, if a group of independents chose to stand under some label, as independents they will benefit from the votes of one another, but if an independent wishes

to stand, as my right hon. Friend might, as an independent, independent of everybody, he will be penalised by the system.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: As I read paragraph 4 on page 30, there cannot be more than one candidate standing as an independent, otherwise there will be more than one candidate with the same campaign description.

Mr. Jay: That might well be true, but I should like a little confirmation from my right hon. Friend before I accept it. But if it were true, it would only confirm my argument.
These are really just bizarre examples of the difficulties into which we get when we try to substitute a party label for the straightforward individual choice. I am not in favour of giving more power to party machines, to party lists and to the principles of patronage, of which we have seen a good deal in recent years.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way to me, because he has already done so to others many times, but I might have misunderstood what he said earlier about what the Bill says in Schedule 4 on page 30. Allowing for the obvious adjustment for the regional officer being in charge of the regional basis of the election as set out therein, is there such a point to be made out of that paragraph being rather sinister or disagreeable for the reasons that he has given? All these paragraphs are lifted wholesale out of the Representation of the People Act, and no words are changed.

Mr. Jay: I was, in general, making the point that under this system more weight will be given to the party label and to the party description than is the ease under the simple system that we have now.
Proportional representation, whether in an EEC election or an election here—and I do not think that we should wholly disregard this—would be an open invitation to extremist parties, and it would be bound to result in the election of more representatives of extremist parties than we are accustomed to at present. I realise that some might say that there is nothing undesirable in that, and that that is one of the difficulties that we have to swallow,


but I think it is important that hon. Members should understand what it means.
I thought that the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) used some astonishingly weak and unconvincing arguments this afternoon. To quote only one, he held up the United States Congress as an example to us all, but he did not mention that for 200 years the United States Congress as well as the President have been elected by the first-past-the-post system.
I conclude that, on grounds of democratic principle, and not these short-term party arguments, although there are arguments for PR, there are also arguments of principle against it, and although, Sir Myer, you might think this a rather conservative sentiment I find that a system that has served the United States for 200 years and this country for 300 years is still good enough for me.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Thorpe: I begin by dealing with what is referred to as the thin-end-of-the-wedge argument. I find extraordinary the lack of confidence of so many right hon. and hon. Members that they will not be able to sustain their own arguments at a Speaker's Conference and in the House of Commons in future years. That seems an extraordinarily fearful indication that they fear that the moment the logic of their case is seen in the open it will evaporate.
As has rightly been said by the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith), there will be no change in the electoral system in this country until and unless there is a majority of Members of Parliament and a majority on the Speaker's Conference in favour of it. The mere fact that the Conservative Government, in my view quite rightly, reintroduced proportional representation in 1973 in Northern Ireland has not brought it a step further in this House, though it has perhaps made people less prejudiced. Some people now begin to understand what it is about, but it has not advanced the case here. Therefore, I regard the thin edge of the wedge argument as a smokescreen to try to prevent people from looking at the case on its merit. There are arguments in favour of the first-past-the-post system and in favour of the proportional system.

Those who say that we should not have a proportional system because it might prove workable show little confidence in themselves.
I support—and did so on the Select Committee—proportional representation by single transferable vote. That would remove a problem because, if there is a surplus in one party, one can transfer it to the candidate who is one's second choice. Under the regional list system one cannot do that, nor can one transfer the surplus from one party to another.
There are difficulties in the regional list system which are common to the first-past-the-post system. The question of the non-transferability is the same, in a different way. If, for instance, a Labour voter is passionately against the Common Market and his Labour candidate is in favour of it, would he vote for the party or for another party which has the same view as he has?
The theory that the first-past-the-post system is fairer is not borne out. The right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) took a long time to reach his conclusions. I feel that if the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) were here he would have been taking a sweepstake on what he will come down in favour of and what against, and enjoy his Christmas better as a result.
I am faced with a choice of first past the post or the regional list system. There is also the SNP alternative vote system which involves some of the difficulties as first past the post.
I support the regional list system on four grounds—first, because of the ease and speed with which it could be introduced; secondly, because of the fairness of the result; thirdly, because it would enable the United Kingdom to send a delegation which has an accurate balance between the groupings within Europe; and, fourthly, because it is a system which we know works and which could be ready in time for May or June.

Sir Frederic Bennett: It would help the Liberal Party.

Mr. Thorpe: Yes, it would help the Liberal Party, but no more than it should, because there would be a fairer representation of the Liberal Party vote. It is possible in this country to add 4


million to one party's vote and have only three more Members of Parliament as a result. I spend a lot of time explaining to people abroad why we have this system. The first-past-the-post system fails to satisfy any one of those four criteria.
The Tory Party is entitled to complain at the delay of the Government in introducing this Bill and in dealing with the representations of the Select Committee. I do not dissent from that. It should come as no surprise to members of the Opposition that there are hon. Members on the Government Benches, even some on the Government Front Bench, who would not be unduly unhappy if there were further delay and who would not mind particularly if the elections could be put off until after the next General Election.
I ask Members of the Tory Party "Do you want to achieve the target of May/June?" In my view, if we could achieve it it would be a great prize for Europe.
The Leader of the Opposition pointed out in Rome that there were more Tory Members who voted for Europe than there were Labour Members who voted for Europe. From that I must assume that the Tories are more enthusiastic in principle and that they can be deemed to want the elections on time if that is possible.
I wish to suggest to the Committee certain matters relating to first past the post which I should like the Committee to bear in mind. There have been suggestions in what I call the "Blaby and Farnworth amendments" that Parliament should determine the boundaries. I am far from confident that the House of Commons could agree on the boundaries.
The Select Committee on Direct Elections to the European Assembly said:
The Committee are strongly of the opinion that the four Parliamentary Boundary Commissions should be responsible for making recommendations on the composition of the constituencies to be used. This would involve dividing the United Kingdom into 81 single member constituencies.
Lord Thorneycroft, in his evidence to the Committee on behalf of the Conservative Party—and it does not matter what the date is, because presumably the Tory Party's principles are unchanging—said:

The Conservative Party believes that the responsibility for defining the boundaries of the constituencies throughout the United Kingdom for the Direct Elections to Europe should rest on the Boundary Commissions for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
That was his view and it was genuinely held. These are matters which should be dealt with, not by the House of Commons but by the Boundary Commissions.
If we accepted the "Blaby and Farnworth amendments", the dispute about boundaries among hon. Members would take just as long as if we left it to the Boundary Commissions and it would be more controversial at the end of the day. The hon. Member for Mid-Oxon (Mr. Hurd) referred to the debate last year and quoted from his own speech. He said:
The Home Secretary had a rather sibylline passage on boundaries in his speech, reflecting an almost similarly obscure passage in the Green Paper, when he said that we might simplify the remit of the Boundary Commission or have other arrangements approved by Parliament. We should put down a marker, even in advance of the Select Committee. I do not wish to be discourteous or to recall uncomfortable memories, but we go for the Boundary Commission with whatever simplifications may be appropriate—not arrangements between the parties or in smoke-filled rooms."—[Official Report, 30th March 1976; Vol. 908, c. 1222.]
That is the view of the Select Committee and the Tory Party itself. They may all change their minds and I accept that that is possible. It would be rather like the judge who found for the defendant at one stage, on the facts, and then changed his mind and said "What appears to appear to me now is not what appeared to appear to me then".
The hon. Member is up against the logic of time. If one adopts option C, which means no representations and no inquiries, that will take only nine weeks. Not even the Leader of the Opposition with her passionate faith in the supreme virtues of first past the post would say that there should be no inquiries and no representations. Option B, which involves one round of representations and no inquiries, will take 18 weeks. In my view, that is wildly optimistic. That time scale assumes that seven weeks of preliminary work has been done, but that must be added to the 18 weeks, making 25 weeks in all. The reason that 18 weeks is given for that system is that it is assumed that


seven weeks' work can be done before Royal Assent. In addition, there are two weeks for the House of Commons to debate and six weeks for the campaign and selection of candidates. That makes a total of about nine months and even that is wildly optimistic.
In the Select Committee I asked if it was not a little optimistic to say that there would be no revisions or alterations made in the recommendations. I was told that it was "very optimistic".
I see the possibility of even option B taking nine months, but the Tories are not satisfied with option B. Lord Thorneycroft asked for option A which requires some local inquiries. That would give us a period of 30 weeks under the first-past-the-post arrangements, but even that is wildly optimistic because it takes no account of the 18 weeks of preliminary work which would have to be completed before Royal Assent.
Let us take, therefore, the Home Secretary's example. For option A the time scale is well over a year, and for option B it is about nine months. I put the logic of this to the hon. Member for Mid-Oxon. If one takes six weeks' campaign and one assumes that polling day is on 30th June—and I am cutting it as fine as I can and putting the case against myself—the campaign will have to take from 14th May. If immediately preceding that the matter is dealt with for two weeks in the House of Commons, and we subtract from that the 18 weeks for the Boundary Commissioner, it would mean that it would have had to have started in mid-December, which is now. The Bill should already by now have received Royal Assent with the seven weeks' preceding work completed. If option B is accepted, therefore, the last possible moment for doing it was the end of October.
I therefore say to Conservative and Labour Members who are in favour of direct elections that on the evidence before us the logic of the situation is that we could not get options A and B for first-past-the-post through in time. I believe that the reason there will be objections is that the Home Secretary says that there will be a bunching together of four, five, six or seven constituencies, and by the nature of the permutations there could

be different political results. Those who felt disadvantaged would say so and would have their objections heard.
We will therefore have all this paraphernalia which could last up to a year in order to be the only nation in the Nine which is unable to meet the target for the five-year period of the present European Assembly.

Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman is fairly developing his case and he is sketching accurately the views which we expressed to the Select Committee and which I think by and large the Select Committee endorsed 18 months ago about the best manner of proceeding. This afternoon I tried to show that we are prepared, unwillingly, in order to make speed, if the Committee on a free vote decided on first past the post, to accelerate these procedures. I suggested three ways—I know that the right hon. Gentleman does not like them—in which we could do this.
The right hon. Gentleman has not addressed himself to the timetable under the regional list, or which we got no satisfaction from the Home Secretary, and the question of whether the regional planning boundaries are not equally arbitrary and therefore open to objection within the boundaries which a Boundary Commission might produce.

Mr. Thorpe: Those of us who know Lord Thorneycroft accept that he is a good democrat, and I accept the good faith of the Tory Party in putting its evidence forward. The Conservatives genuinely believed that the Boundary Commissioners were the appropriate body to carry out this quasi-judicial function. That is an absolute test. It may be because of that that the whole of the elections will be put back, but that is another matter. The Tories believe that local people should be able to participate in local inquiries, but it would be profoundly wrong to deprive people of the right to make representations. [HON. MEMBERS: "But you are doing so."] I hope that hon. Members will permit me to come to the regional list proposals because I believe that it would be possible with them to meet the timetable and for there to be a degree of amendment to the proposed schedule.
Paragraph 14 of the White Paper fairly put forward the case for PR and for first


past the post, and it refers to the tendencies for swings in electoral opinion to be magnified. It says that this would be enormously magnified with 81 constituencies. Of course, the Government themselves give the game away in paragraph 24 when they say that there will have to be PR in Northern Ireland. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) may not approve of this, but why did the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) reintroduce PR in Northern Ireland? Why has the Labour Party kept it? It is because it is crucially important that minority opinion is not only fairly represented but is seen to be fairly represented. The Government give the game away because in paragraph 24 of the White Paper they are saying that if we have first past the post we must have PR in Northern Ireland because it is the only system that permits us to see that minorities are represented—

Mr. Powell: Can I help the right hon. Gentleman?

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Thorpe: It is doubtful, but I give the right hon. Gentleman the chance.

Mr. Powell: Then I shall take it. The real reason is that, as in so many matters, the Government were under a misapprehension. They thought that representation would be increased, representation which they regarded as fair—representation of a minority. In fact the distribution of the population is such that the balance between the minority and the majority is almost exactly the same on first past the post as on PR, but they did not know that.

Mr. Thorpe: I fear that the reason the right hon. Gentleman is misinformed on that is that at that time he represented in the House of Commons the constituency of Wolverhampton, South-West, and he was not as intimately concerned with Northern Ireland as he is now.

Mr. Powell: Yes, I was.

Mr. Thorpe: If it had not been for PR and the return of moderates and people of moderate opinion there never would have been a power-sharing Executive or a Sunningdale meeting. But what happened? Within weeks there was a Westminster first-past-the-post election

and while 52 per cent. voted against Sunningdale, 11 out of the 12 Members returned were against Sunningdale, and that is what killed power-sharing in Northern Ireland. If the election could have waited for 18 months I think that power-sharing would have worked out.
There is no question, but that the first-past-the-post system—at the moment I leave aside the Liberal Party—will be distorting in its results in Scotland where three parties are roughly equal. There is no doubt that the Labour Party will be underrepresented in England and the Tory Party under-represented in Wales. Yet this will be the great democratic delegation that we are sending to Europe.
The arguments in favour of first past the post are these. We were told by the Select Committee that we should not have to change twice within a comparatively short period. But whatever we do will involve the new system and new boundaries. The chances are that the change which will take place in the second election will be infinitely less if we have the regional list system than if we change from first past the post to regional list. So there is not much logic in that.
We were also told that it would not be easy to reach agreement under the time-scale envisaged. It would be if we voted tonight for the regional list system which, if we can get the Royal Assent by next March, would give adequate time for the preparation of campaigns. We can do it my having a guillotine which I am delighted to hear the Opposition will acquiesce in. I am sure that as good Europeans they will contribute one or two of their Supply Days, and I am sure that we shall get along very well. I do not see why that should be unreasonable. The hon. Member for Mid-Oxon is no less a good European than I am, and if I had a Supply Day I should gladly give it.
The point that I find endearing is the idea that there will be a great relationship between the Member of Parliament and his 500,000 and 600,000 constituents. His surgery door will be open and the constituents will stream in. We were told in the White Paper that most of the issues discussed in the European Assembly will have as much significance for a region in England as for a European constituency.
The Committee should realise that we in this country already have regional administration in the form of economic planning boards and councils and consumer groups. They have one great defect. They are all appointed. It would add enormous strength to regional policies if we had regionally-elected Members of Parliament for the European Assembly. To those who are frightened that these European Members would compete with Members of this House, I say that it is far less likely for that to happen if they are elected on a regional basis rather than on a basis of bunching constituencies together.
Quite frankly, if there is a case for subdivision of the South-East from, say, 14 to 7, this is something that the House of Commons could do. For this reason, under the regional list system proportionality and fairness are guaranteed. If one is in a seven-Member constituency and gets one-seventh of the vote, one gets one seat. If one is in a five-Member constituency and gets three-fifths of the vote one gets three seats. Therefore, there is not the same argument about gerrymandering. It is a question of the size of the area involved. I believe that there could be variations under the regional list system, which, I believe we could have by the end of March.

Mr. Lawson: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has studied the regional list system and its effect as proposed under the Bill. The degree of proportionality increases very substantially in accordance with the size of the region. Some regions are larger than others, and there is no equal degree of proportionality across the board. Therefore, in the argument of whether a region should be divided this makes a difference.

Mr. Thorpe: The truth is that the first-past-the-post system is one of the most disproportionate systems ever devised by man. Under the regional list system the quota is the same, and the percentage is the same whether there are seven, 10 or four Members in a region. The regional list system indicates how many candidates are elected and the fraction is one-seventh, one-tenth or a quarter of what is permitted plus one. Although it may not have perfect proportionality, it is much closer to perfection than first past the post. If that is what is really concerning

the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) he should not support first past the post.
If we are genuinely anxious to get a system through that is fair, speedy and efficient, we must forget all the old fashioned arguments about the regional list system being new and never having been tried before. In introducing the amendment, the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) made the best old-fashioned, conservative speech that I have heard for a long time—the first-past-the-post system was proved and was part of our tradition. Like roast beef and cricket, it was all part of the English way of life. But we are electing an Assembly for Europe. I want to see it elected, and the regional list system is quick, fair and easily understandable—

Mr. Jay: That is a joke.

Mr. Thorpe: The electorate is much more intelligent than the right hon. Gentleman thinks. Not least it was more intelligent over the European referendum than he thought it would be.

Dr. Colin Phipps: I wish to start with a reference to the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Gould), who suggested that support for the principle of proportional representation in direct elections was a somewhat devious and clandestine attempt by the supporters of European union to bring that about. For my part I think that there is nothing clandestine or devious in my belief in European union. I am an avowed advocate of it, and I hope that direct elections will lead to it. I agree with many of the things that my hon. Friend put forward. The only difference between us is that he fears them and I hope for them.
The debate so far has been very largely about the thin-end-of-the-wedge argument. That is not surprising. Fundamentally, I believe that if the House were faced, in a context outside, with the question of electing people to the European Parliament, it would go for a system of proportional representation—perhaps not this system, but certainly a PR system of some sort.
All the arguments here against it have been against PR in this House. The arguments have taken the form of the majority government argument, the contact


with the constituency argument, the letting in of extreme parties argument and the idea that with PR one is voting for an individual or constituency rather than a political party.
First of all I shall take the majority government argument. The argument that the first-past-the-post system produces a majority Government was good once. But we have not been producing majority Governments recently. It is said that PR produces coalition Governments. That is a genuine and accurate argument, but the fact is that we have a coalition at the moment under the first-past-the-post system. Many people do not believe that after the next General Election there will be a party with a natural majority in the House, and there is every chance that we may face a succession of coalition Governments of one kind or another. If it does not produce majority Governments there is very little argument for having first past the post at all.
My own preference for proportional representation has been developing ever since I became a Member of this House. It is connected with my belief that PR will help to decrease the power of the Executive over Back Benchers in this House.
Secondly, there is the constituency argument, and this is valid. But the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) put his finger on the difficulty of looking after 500,000 to 600,000 people. He also put his finger on something that has been concerning me since I came into this House. How does one get any kind of regional view put across?
The West Midlands, of which my constituency is a one fifty-seventh part, has had a very raw deal over the past 10 to 15 years. The regional policies that we have followed have deprived the West Midlands of much natural and proper growth that should have taken place there. This is bad for the West Midlands and bad for the country as a whole. When I try to develop these arguments it is very difficult to get 56 other hon. Members to put forward the regional point of view. The European Parliament will be very much about regional points of view, and it will be much easier to get seven people together to push the

interests of the West Midlands than to get 57 people—

Mr. Martin Flannery: My hon. Friend must be joking.

Dr. Phipps: Far from joking, I believe that European policy is on a regional basis, and, therefore, there is a great deal of sense in having the elections on a regional basis as well.

Mr. Robert Hughes: How far does my hon. Friend go on regional representation? It is precisely the case of the SNP that it feels that it will only get proper regional representation when Scotland is independent. Where does he draw the line?

Dr. Phipps: I am sorry that I do not follow my hon. Friend's argument precisely. I do not believe that the existence of an independent West Midlands would help its economic future, either within Europe or within the United Kingdom. I believe that, because it is an integral part of Europe, represented by seven members of the European Parliament, who are totally committed to its interests, it is likely to do well. Having a separate Parliament is the very last way to get these interests looked after.

Mrs. Audrey Wise: How far does my hon. Friend think that seven West Midland Members would see eye to eye on regional policy, regardless of party affiliations? Does his desire for the regional list system outweigh his party affiliation and his political sense?

7.45 p.m.

Dr. Phipps: I believe that within a regional set-up there will be a much greater degree of self-interest among Members when it comes to the importance of their own regions. [Hon. Members: "No."] This seems highly likely, and the arguments adduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West (Mrs. Wise) and her friends in this debate have been that the delegates to the European Parliament will not represent the United Kingdom. I believe that half the trouble with the European Parliament is that they represent the United Kingdom too much. The


fact is that it is natural for Members from the United Kingdom to wish to represent their regions. That is what happens at present in the European Parliament.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Has my hon. Fried not noticed that when we go to the European Parliament we sit in political blocs? Any idea that we may go across party lines is discounted by every political party.

Dr. Phipps: When I read the newspaper reports of debates in the European Parliament, it seems clear to me that British Members of whatever party combine together against French Members of whatever party.
I believe that the region is an important factor and that this will develop from a regional list system. The argument that there will be voting for individuals rather than for parties does not occur anyway in our present system. My right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), who is not now present, suggested that there would be a great deal of patronage in the selection of European Members. The fact is that every Member of Parliament pays great attention to those who select him. We all pay attention to the general management committee in our constituency, or whatever body selects us and keeps us in Parliament. Therefore, I see no difference between patronage developed on a regional scale and patronage on a constituency scale.
Overriding all is the argument about fairness. My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Gould) said that this was an argument put forward only by the Liberals. I believe that the argument is fully justified. With 81 members in the European Parliament, I do not see that it is in any way just or representative to have representation that is confined to two or, at the most, three parties. It is totally unacceptable and unfair. For this reason alone I support PR for Europe.
Having given my reasons for wishing to see the PR system introduced, I must point out that the system which has been chosen has rather severe defects. The Government appear to have achieved the same effect with the devolution Bills. Faced with two quite clear alternatives, they have managed to fall between two different stools. If we are to have a PR system, that system should be taken to its

logical conclusion and we should have some kind of single transferable vote system.
There is an amendment which the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) and I have tabled on this matter which, unfortunately, has not been selected. What the Government have done in producing this PR regional list system is to give an enormous advantage either to a member on that list who is particularly well known or to the first member on a list in which nobody is well known.
If we turn to page 61 of the Bill we see a list of five Labour Party candidates. I have never heard of any of them, and that is a situation which I expect will occur in respect of many electors in the election. Faced with such a list, my natural tendency will be to put my tick at the side of the name of the first blank space. If my name were Abramson or Aaronson I would have every confidence of being elected under this system. Indeed, it would be almost impossible not to be elected under this system. The only real answer for such a list if we do not have a STV system is to have yet another block. In other words, there would be a No. 1 block with the words "Labour Party".

Mr. James Dempsey: Is there not a possibility under the list of which my hon. Friend speaks that he could be rejected by the electors because he had been imposed on that electorate by a party organisation?

Dr. Phipps: I think that is true. The electorate has no say or choice under a first-past-the-post method, because that choice is undertaken by the general management committee. Under a different system it will have the opportunity to make a choice, and that is why I prefer the STV system with a number of different Labour candidates. 'The electorate certainly will have more choice than it has currently.
If a well-known or popular Member, such as the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), were for some reason to stand as an anti-Common Market candidate in an anti-Common Market party, I suspect that he would draw many votes towards that bracket. I have no doubt that he could have six other gentlemen or ladies standing with him who might


obtain no votes whatever, but they could be elected on the backs of the votes he received. Therefore, the system we are adopting is extremely unsatisfactory in respect of fairness to each of the individual candidates.
I urge the Government to place a block on the list with the name of the party so that the elector can vote for party. That would be an improvement in the system. Even better would be an STV system which would overcome the difficulty of the well-known Member on the list when the other Members were virtually unknown.
I shall be voting for the system of PR not because it will keep the Lib-Lab pact alive but because it is the only fair and proper system to use in these elections.

Mr. William Craig: I am happy to be called following the speech of the hon. Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Phipps) because he and I serve on the Council of Europe and we know how Europeans can work together for the common good without becoming entrapped in formulae or machinery.
I wish to address my remarks to the Committee on the basis of being a good European and from the point of view of Europe working together. However, because I care for Europe I do not wish to be rushed into jumping fences before I know what is on the other side.
We listened with interest to the remarks of the right hon. Member for Devon. North (Mr. Thorpe)—a man for whom we all have the greatest respect, no matter what outside interests may say, a man of integrity, great capacity and judgment. I happen to disagree with almost every word he said. We must all concern ourselves with the argument he adduced. In other words, it is no use saying that one disagrees with something if one does not say why.
Having emphasised my commitment to Europe, I believe that we should know exactly where we are going. Unfortunately, whether it is Government or Opposition responsibility, none of us in this House knows that. That is one of the tragedies of the situation.
I spoke in the Second Reading debate on the Bill, and I was misreported in Hansard as saying that I predicted a

federal Europe. However, because I was away in Europe I could not correct that misreporting. The one thing that I am sure will not happen in Europe is the development of a federal United States of Europe, but it is inevitable, and important to record, that there should be a closer coming together in Europe and greater co-ordination of policies. It is now a matter of finding the right machinery and democratic method.
I get myself into a bother over this. Hon. Members who are familiar with "Macbeth", whether as a straight play or, even better, as an opera, and with the cacophony that surrounds the witches' cauldron, will appreciate the difficulty in which I find myself tonight. I want to do what is right for Europe, and I know that the only thing that I can do that will be of long-term benefit to Europe will be to benefit my own country, the United Kingdom. This is where we can all go astray, simply because the target dates in the Treaty of Rome have long been overtaken by events, whether economic, social or political, and we get hung up. The dates were good some years ago but have long since been overtaken by events.
The characteristic of statesmanship in government is to be able to stand aside and measure how time has advanced. Many of the arguments that have been put forward during this debate have made me puzzle for a moment whether we have appreciated just how far Europe has moved forward since the Treaty of Rome.
One of the elements of any machinery for our new relationship in Europe must involve a directly elected Assembly. I disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) because I believe that any elected representative to that Assembly would be representing not the nation of the United Kingdom but the people. A Member would go there to represent our people in respect of powers that would have been transferred from Parliament as the sovereign authority for this nation—just as we ask local government councillors to go to local authorities to represent the people in relation to the powers that we have bestowed on those institutions. I am very much concerned with this argument. A Member would be representing the nation or the people in terms of the powers that would have been transferred,


for the time being, and in one way or another, to the EEC.
A matter that concerns me greatly is how the electorate, the people, will see it. Everybody is tossing up into the air tonight, comments on the standards of democracy as if one can draw a standard of democracy for a nation, another for local government and another for the EEC. Our people in the United Kingdom, whatever part of it they come from, are intelligent and well informed, and I know from the Northern Ireland experience that once one starts juggling with democracy in this fashion one can distort the will of the people.
8.0 p.m.
Having made reference to my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South and to the hon. Member for Dudley, West, I now come to the Home Secretary. We first exchanged views on television and we were hostile, but as we got to know each other better that hostility diminished. As far as I am concerned there has been a growing respect. I hope that it is mutual. I did not find any effort or solution in the Home Secretary's taking upon himself tonight glory for what he did in Northern Ireland, which his predecessors may have initiated. One cannot make a crown of thorns into a jubilee crown.
As for the single transferable vote, it may be presented as proportional representation but it is one or the most destructive forms of democracy. It is degrading in every sense of the word. With multi-Member constituencies one even finds those within the same party tearing the guts out of each other. It is all right for those who read academic books, but let us listen to those who have experienced it on the ground. The STV is not PR but a different process and it is the destruction of all that is good in democracy.

Dr. Phipps: I can see that the argument of the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig) on STV applied in small constituencies might be valid, but if there is a large number of Members of one party on a list, is it not a much better form of democracy to allow STV—if only within the list of the members of that party? At least that would be a better indication of the preference of the voters.

There might be one popular candidate or others that no one knows of at all.

Mr. Craig: I appreciate the argument of the hon. Member for Dudley, West and I was about to go on and expand the point, because that is an even worse situation than STV. If this is to work in Northern Ireland or anywhere, and if one wants a short, sharp proportional representation system, then the regional list is better in a constituency of three Members. But once there are constituencies of seven or nine Members, what will that mean? We must remember that according to the first clause of the Bill we shall be electing representatives of the people to a European Assembly. To whom will those Members be responsible? We are the people who speak for the United Kingdom, but to whom will elected representatives be accountable in multi-Member constituencies if elected under the regional list system in numbers of seven or 10? I do not see a sufficient degree of accountability there to satisfy the needs of a democracy. If I were going for a system of proportional representation, I should go for one of those unique compromises that we happen to be so good at in this country when we occasionally stumble on them.
I suppose that we can take credit for being one of those involved in drawing up the constitution of the West German Federal Republic where there is a nice mixture of the party list system, in a modified way, with the benefit of single-Member constituencies and an appropriate dash of proportionalism—that is, two-thirds from the constituency and one-third from the proportional element.
We have not got far enough in the debate to be taking over-definite decisions today. From my experience the country will run into a great deal of trouble once there is a plurality of franchise forms. In Northern Ireland, we have district councils, elected by STV. When we had a so-called devolved institution, it was elected by STV, but hon. Members have always been elected by the first-past-the-post system.

Mr. Rathbone: The right hon. Gentleman is not precisely correct. It is a modern phenomenon for all hon. Members to be elected by the first-past-the-post system. The last hon. Members elected


by STV disappeared only in 1950. They represented university seats.

Mr. Craig: We had four Members from Queen's University who were not elected under a strict STV system as we know it, so the hon. Gentleman has taken a step aside from the reality.
It is interesting to note from the Northern Ireland experience what happens once we start with a plurality of forms of franchise. A very nice person came up to me in East Belfast and said "Mr. Craig, you are the greatest. We have given you our seven votes. We put No. 7 against your name in the STV system." Hon. Members may laugh, but this was not an isolated incident. It is the sort of confusion that arises from a multiplicity of franchises. Even when I was elected to this House, it was amazing how many papers were spoiled by people putting numerical descriptions rather than the straightforward cross.
I believe in a form of proportional representation, but I do not think that this country is sufficiently far advanced at this stage to decide upon it. One thing which makes me decide that is the Government's indecision. They come here with this important Bill having been unable to make up their minds about the form of franchise that we should have. The Home Secretary and I may be friends, but I must tell him that the way the Government have presented this to us is almost an insult.
The Government are saying that we can have the regional list system for the whole United Kingdom or the first-past-the-post system for Great Britain and STV for Northern Ireland. This is the Government who were talking only a few weeks ago about the integrity of the United Kingdom. I cannot reconcile these things.
Having castigated the Government, let me turn to the Conservative Front-Bench leaders. What have they done? Where is their amendment to correct this injustice? I see nothing from the Conservative Party, which believes in the first-past-the-post system, to suggest that it should apply throughout the whole of the United Kingdom. That puts me in a dilemma. While I might be tempted to take a risk on the regional list system, I shall not be party to a piece of legislation

that is approached in such an unprincipled and ambiguous way.

Mr. Hurd: Perhaps I should remind the right hon. Gentleman of what took place in the first Second Reading debate in July. When the point that he is making was raised, my right hon. Friend made clear that we would not favour having a different franchise for Ulster from that in the rest of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Craig: I am conscious of that and grateful that the hon. Member for Mid-Oxon (Mr. Hurd) has drawn the attention of the record to that fact. However, if he means what he says, something should have appeared on the Order Paper.

Mr. Powell: It is on the Order Paper.

Mr. Craig: It will not be dealt with until after we have taken this decision. There has been dilatoriness in this matter. I can speak with a certain amount of confidence for all hon. Members representing Ulster constituencies, whatever their feelings about Europe. We want a form of franchise which will be effective in terms of representing the people of this country as distinct from the Government or nation. There is nothing in the Bill which gives us any confidence.
If I wanted to be selfish and to think purely in Northern Ireland terms, I should say that the regional list system would give a better representation of all interests involved in Northern Ireland, but we, as a nation, cannot have these distinctions. Once we recognised that principle, we would have to translate it into so many other areas. I cannot and my weight to it.
I do not know what my Ulster colleagues will do. I should like to see progress made in Europe. I shall not vote on the form of franchise, but I hope that hon. Members who do vote—whichever way they decide to vote—will avoid the confusion that arises out of a plurality of electoral franchises and that we shall have one that applies to everyone, in the name of democracy.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: I added my name to the amendment because I am against PR as a means of election to this Chamber and I am convinced that if we were to pass the Bill as drafted we would give an unnecessary fillip to the campaign for PR here.
My arguments can easily be compressed into the phrase that this campaign is the thin end of the wedge. That argument is amply justified by the experience in Northern Ireland to which the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig) has just referred. The reason that there is a different system proposed for Northern Ireland in the event of the amendment being carried is that the Northern Ireland experience of STV already exists in relation to one kind of election. Having set the example, the Government did not feel that they could go back on it and provide a first-past-the-post system for the European elections.
Once the thin end of the wedge has been inserted, it goes on. Once it had been inserted by the Committee by the refusal of the amendment, it would go on. The reason that the Liberals are so adamant that we should pass the Government's Bill and the reason that Mr. Christopher Mayhew is threatening me, his old colleague, with eternal damnation if I do not subscribe to the sort of madcap ideas which took him out of my party and into the Liberal Party is that they believe that this is the thin end of the wedge.
For all sorts of good reasons, I do not accept that proportional representation is better for this country than the first-past-the-post system. I do not accept that it is necessarily fairer. It has always been difficult to understand why, if a majority of electors vote for candidate A, they should end up with B, C or D under a system that is supposed to be fairer than that which gives them their first choice. I accept that, in proportion to the total number of votes cast throughout the country, PR might be fairer in terms of getting the national will expressed, but I am convinced that the first-past-the-post system is just as fair. It gives us a system which on the whole—though not, I agree, invariably—provides stronger government than PR. One of the reasons that there are such strong arguments for PR in the country is the disenchantment with party politics in this Chamber. PR is an attempt to see that the extremes of party politics, as conceived by the media for the public, are inhibited by PR which is the system of coalition.

Mr. Russell Johnston: At the last General Election the Labour Party in Scot-

land obtained 36 per cent. of the vote and 57 per cent. of the seats. The hon. Gentleman said that on a national basis PR might be fairer. Surely that is a clear example of where it would be fairer.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Lyon: The hon. Gentleman may be right in saying that that is a clear example, but it matters not. I am persuaded by arguments that persuaded the Liberal Government of 1906–14 that it is better to have a stronger form of government than a more representative system of election to the Chamber from which that Government are formed.
My experience and understanding of the world is that in the countries where PR exists there is almost invariably—not entirely—a system that leads to weaker government and to deals between parties to form coalitions. That does not give expression to a clear and logical form of party commitment which I espouse and which I am sure a great many Opposition Members espouse. In my judgment, it is unlikely that if we had PR in this country for election to this Chamber we should ever have a majority Labour Government again. That might be a desirable result from the point of view of Opposition Members, but I argue that it is very unlikely that we should have a majority Conservative Government again.
The reason why the PR system is desired by the Liberal Party is precisely that it is that objective that it wishes to achieve, so that it may have greater credibility and act as some kind of balancing item in the party structure. If the Liberal Party thought at the next election that it would be returned to power by 100 seats, we should soon forget much of this talk about PR. Therefore, let us not talk about humbug as did the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith).
We all came into politics because we are interested in pursuing a state of society that our individual idealogical backgrounds dictate as the more desirable for the country. We do it in honesty and with conviction. We believe that if we achieve the sort of society that we are seeking the country will be a better place in which to live. If that is true, it is undesirable that we should have a weaker


form of government, a coalition alignment that inhibits progress towards the form of society that we seek.
For that reason, I am against PR. I say to my constituents that I shall never vote for PR in any circumstances. If that is what they want, they must look elsewhere in seeking a Member of Parliament to represent them.
Do my constituents really want it? It is true that the opinion polls seem to say that it is what they want. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Phipps) says, we have the result of PR. We have a coalition Government whether our constituents like it or whether they do not. All the evidence appears to be that they do not like it. Those who supported a Labour Government on a manifesto that was designed to produce an irreversible advance towards Socialism find that they do not like the coalition Government. Apparently those who voted for the Liberal Party on the basis that it would advance towards Liberalism do not like it either.
Although there is an appearance in the country that the electorate wants PR and a coalition Government, the reality is that it does not like coalition Governments. It likes an expression of a change of the party policy that accords with its mood at the election. That mood is expressed generally—not precisely—in the manifesto that is presented by the party that it selects. If at the next election it finds that it has been let down by that party, it will go to its Member of Parliament, the man who represents it—not some amorphous cloud of witnesses representing the region, but the man who represents the electorate in the constituency.
It will say "Why did you not do what you said you would do at the previous election?" If we have a PR system, a regional list system or a coalition system, all that the representative needs to say is "It was not my fault. I was going to do exactly what I said I was going to do in my manifesto. However, when we got in we had to count up the seats and do a deal. The deal was done above my head and I am not responsible."

Mr. David Crouch: rose—

Mr. Lyon: If we have any real experience of a strong democracy it arises from the clear link between the constituency and the Member of Parliament.

Mr. Crouch: rose—

Dr. Phipps: rose—

Mr. Lyon: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Phipps).

Dr. Phipps: I take up two of my hon. Friend's points. First, he says that coalitions lead to weak Governments. I do not know whether his observations are different from mine, but is he saying that the sort of weak government that coalitions have produced in West Germany and Holland, for example, has led to less economic and social advance that we have seen in this country?

Mr. Lyon: Holland was surely a bad example to choose. It might be better to choose Germany. If there is an agreed policy, I accept that in certain circumstances there might be some sort of economic progress that might not be possible to achieve if the parties are warring between themselves. However, it does not necessarily follow that if they had had a first-past-the-post system in Germany they would have had any less strong government since the war and would not have had the same economic achievement. I am certain that in this country we would not achieve the Socialist society that I want to create by a system of PR and coalition government.

Mr. Penhaligon: We are not getting it now.

Mr. Crouch: rose—

Mr. Lyon: If the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) says that we are not getting a Socialist society under the present system, all that I can say is that we are getting much nearer to it than would be the case under a PR system. The system of PR is designed precisely to avoid us getting a society that is espoused both by Opposition Members and by myself—namely, our own conviction of what is right for society as a whole. I prefer to fight in that forum than in a forum dedicated to creating coalitions. It is for that reason that I do not propose to vote for PR.
It is said that I should consider PR because I voted to go into Europe and because I voted for the Second Reading of the Bill. It is said that if I believe in direct elections to a European Parliament I should believe in getting the Bill through in time to have the elections next year. That is the most deplorable argument I have heard in the whole debate. What timing has to do with the enormous issues of principle involved in the discussion of the two systems, I do not know.
The Heads of Government have been warned that we might very well turn down PR tonight, and that that could put back the timetable. I see no signs of consternation among the Heads of Government. It is clear that Europe could easily move to the year after next for its elections to the directly-elected Parliament.
I do not accept the argument of the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) that that necessarily means that the mood of the moment will have passed and that we cannot revive that mood in the following year. Last Session we voted down devolution, but this Session we have the devolution Bills back again. If we miss the tide next year for direct elections to Europe, we can still have them in the following year if the heads of Government agree.
I do not find the right hon. Gentleman's opinions persuasive. All the deep and dire matters enumerated by the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) in the middle of the right hon. Gentleman's speech happened under a Government in which the right hon. Gentleman was the Prime Minister, and he argued for each in turn. Therefore, he and other hon. Members should have a certain humility in telling us that it is inevitable and right that we should have PR for Europe and that we must not miss the tide next year.
Indeed, as I understand it—and I understand it only from the Press—my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is anxious that we should not have an election to the European Parliament before the General Election. Therefore, I shall be doing my right hon. Friend a great favour in voting down the proposals put forward by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in his name. Most of the arguments used in favour of PR for Europe

are capable of that kind of easy determination. I do not accept that there is anything overwhelming in the case advanced for PR that means that we must vote for it today, if we believe it to be wrong. I accept that for the Liberal Party, and perhaps some of my hon. Friends, PR for Europe, and perhaps even for this Chamber, is a matter of principle. In that case, it is right for them to vote for the words in the Bill. But if they do not believe in PR as a matter of principle I can see no reason in expediency why they should support the Government tonight and vote against the amendment.
Certainly, I do not accept that we must vote for PR in order to maintain the Lib-Lab pact. Liberal Members were not averse to voting down Clause 1 of the Scotland Bill. They said afterwards that the clause did not mean very much and that therefore it was not very much to vote it down. The argument is even stronger if we come to an issue of principle that means a great deal. If the Lib-Lab pact means that we should all be able to exercise our consciences, we should be able to exercise them on serious issues of principle such as this. We should have the same freedom to decide our room for manoeuvre as the Liberals had on Clause 1 of the Scotland Bill.
Therefore, the Lib-Lab pact is far from binding us to support the Liberals' view of PR. It would not be in conflict with any honourable compromise that we have reached that we should this evening decide in principle that it would be retrograde to vote for PR for Europe. If I am right, we should be buying a little time in order to put the Labour Party out of office for all time.

Mr. Gould: Does my hon. Friend recall that one of the concessions apparently extracted from the Government by the Liberals as the price for the pact was that we should have a free vote on this very issue?

Mr. Lyon: Indeed, and I have always thought that a free vote means a free vote, a free vote inside the Government. I hope that no accommodation is made for the payroll vote tonight. All votes here are really free votes. There is no such thing as a Whip. There are free votes as long as we are men of conscience and as long as we say that we shall vote as


we think right. That position ceases only when we decide that someone on the Front Bench will tell us how to vote. I never did think much of the system, anyway, and I do not think that on this issue any of us could say that we should have our consciences subordinated to the wishes of the Government, their Whips, or any accommodation between the Liberals and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
What we must do tonight is to put all those considerations on one side and ask "What do we think is best for this country?" I accept that that means that we shall see the matter in terms of party considerations, because I joined my party in order to see that we had a better country, and I believe in the policy of my party because I believe that it will lead to a better country.
Therefore, I accept that there are party considerations to be considered, but because I believe that in the interests of the nation as a whole it is better not to have PR, I certainly shall not support it.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Paul Channon: I, too, like the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon), am a signatory to the amendment. I support it, though not for entirely the same reasons as he does. Nor would he expect me to do so. There were a great many points in his speech with which I am in complete agreement, as I think will be a great many other hon. Members.
Before I deal with those, I should like to make one comment to the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig). The only reason why this amendment comes before the Northern Ireland amendment is the rules of order. A great many other hon. Members have signed the motion that Northern Ireland should have the same system of election as the rest of the United Kingdom.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Oxon (Mr. Hurd)—and, earlier, my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw)—said that so far as the Conservative Party is concorned, as I understand its position, the system which we decide upon tonight should be applied throughout the United Kingdom. I hope that my hon. Friend

will reconsider his decision not to vote tonight and will, perhaps join the cause of those who are against the regional list system, and I gather from his speech that he was. [Interruption.] That is what I gathered. I may be proved to be wrong.
I am against this proposal in the Bill for two reasons. First, I am in favour of the individual Member system that we have at present, in any case. Secondly, I am against this particular form of proportional representation in principle, even if we have to have PR. If there were a genuinely free vote in the House of Commons, as we are told there will be tonight, with no pressure of any kind, I very much doubt whether there would be any more than a handful of Members who would vote for this particular form of PR. Even the Liberal Party does not want it. It wants to have the single transferable vote. I know very few hon. Members who think that the regional list system is the right system for the election to the European Parliament. There are only a handful of Members who are going to vote for this system out of a conviction that it is a good system and the best that can be obtained.
What are the advantages of the regional list system? First, there would be no individual Member representing a constituency. We are told by some hon. Members that the constituencies are so large that the concept of an individual Member representing them is not valid. But that does not apply to the American Senate election. Senators represent many hundreds of thousands of people—sometimes millions of people—and they have very close contact with their electors. I do not accept that argument for a moment.
What I believe is that for the very first time that we have European elections it is more important on that occasion than at any subsequent election to have an individual Member whom one knows is representing or failing to represent one in the European Parliament. The argument on the first occasion is even stronger. I resent, too, the inevitable fact that in the regional list system the selection of candidates will inevitably be in the hands of the regional party machines of the big parties, and of the Liberal Party, of all parties. There is no reason to assume that the regional party machines contain the right people to


choose the candidates for these elections. What will happen in the Labour Party, for example? If one voted for one Labour Member, one's favourite out of a list of perhaps 14 in the South-East, one would be voting, perhaps, for members of the Tribune Group whom one might not want at all. One would have no way of differentiating between those whom one wants to represent one and those whom one does not want. One would have to vote for the list as a whole. That would be a bad thing.
There is a point which has not been made in this debate which is common to a great many systems of PR. That is that it is wrong throughout the lifetime of the European Parliament completely to do away with by-elections, for example. How ridiculous it is that there should be no way of measuring the movement of public opinion between these elections. Yet that is also proposed in the Bill.
We have been told on many occasions that we are to have a uniform system of elections to the European Parliament in due course. I shall believe that when I see it. It has taken us a great many years to get this far. We shall see whether we get a common system. It will be a very long time before we do. If I am wrong and we get to a common system of election, we shall certainly not get to the PR system of election proposed in the Bill, I suggest, because nobody wants this system. We shall therefore have to change our electoral system in any case if we adopt a common system.
If we are to have PR, which I personally am strongly opposed to, the least obnoxious form is the German system which I know a number of my hon. Friends are attracted to. I believe that the regional list is one of the most obnoxious systems of PR that could possibly be devised. Indeed, I sometimes think that the Government are so Machiavellian that they want this system to be passed in the hope that it will do irreparable damage to the cause of PR if such a ridiculous form of election were ever perpetrated on the British people.
The only argument I can think of for voting for the regional list system rather than the amendment is that, if there were a genuinely free vote, we could have the elections under the regional list system but we could not have them under first past the post. If that were true the fault

would lie entirely with the Government who have delayed this matter for such a long time. We could have had the vote certainly last April, if not earlier.
Everyone knows—it is an open secret—that we shall not be able to have these elections in time. No one in the House of Commons believes that we shall have them in time. Those of us who had any lingering doubts on that score were not particularly encouraged to change our minds by the Home Secretary's answers to the questions posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Oxon.
Does anyone seriously believe that after Christmas the Government will devote the major portion of Government time to getting this Bill though the House of Commons and another place in order to have direct elections in May or June of next year? The proposition is ridiculous. [HON. MEMBERS: "Or at all?"] Or at all is a different matter. But what is absolutely certain is that it is quite impossible to hold these elections under either system in May or June. Some hon. Members think that this is a very good thing. They do not want the elections at all. That is a perfectly understandable point of view. I think that is a great pity, but it is a fact.
However, we delude ourselves if we think that we shall be able to hold the elections under the regional list system rather than under the first-past-the-post system. The Government White Paper stated in paragraph 29 that it would take six months to select candidates and prepare for the elections. I do not think that it will need to be as long as that, but the Home Secretary said this afternoon that after Royal Assent we would need three months. Does anyone imagine that we shall get Royal Assent by then? If the Government were prepared to take this step and speed up this matter I believe that it would be just as easy to do so under the first-past-the-post system through the adoption of the amendments in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) and the hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Roper). But the truth is that the Government do not have the will to do this. If they had the will, the Bill would be at a far more advanced stage than it is now.
The Prime Minister has said that it would not be the end of the world if


elections did not take place in 1978. I think that he is seeking to find an excellent excuse for a decision that he has already taken. If the will had existed, the election could have taken place under either system.
Surely what is going on—and what hon. Members in their hearts know—is that this question is being used as the thin end of the wedge in respect of future elections to the Westminster Parliament. Whatever the Liberal Party may say, I do not believe that the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) would not use this as an extra argument for having elections to Westminster on a proportional system.

Mr. Russell Johnston: The hon. Gentleman will, of course, recognise that while it is true that we would wish to use that argument—we would never dream of denying it—nevertheless, the electoral system for this House will be determined by a Speaker's Conference which is representative of all the parties in this House. That is how it will be determined.

Mr. Channon: I am sure that is true. But that does not displace the argument that this is the thin end of the wedge. The hon. Gentleman out of his own mouth has said that he will use the argument—indeed, that it will be used by Liberal spokesman—to advance the cause of PR for elections to Westminster. Not only Conservatives believe this. The National Agent of the Labour Party, giving evidence to the Select Committee, said that the two issues could not be divorced, and he was fearful that one would lead to the other.
Is it not the case that a few years ago PR became the fashionable constitutional panacea for all our ailments? Every thing that was wrong in this country could be cured, at a stroke, it was said, by the introduction of proportional representation. That happened in 1975, after the two elections of 1974. It became fashionable for many academics to believe that this was some magic way of ditching the Left, if one took that view, or perhaps ditching the Right, if one took another point of view. It is not unlike devolution. That, too, is the fashionable constitutional remedy for

certain ills, and just look at the mess we are getting into because we went down that road. It is a great mistake for the Committee to seek to make fundamental changes which are for purely short-term, expedient, reasons in advance of a Speaker's Conference.
We can have no confidence that in the past PR has necessarily led to the election of governments which we would all find admirable. There are plenty of examples where this has been so, but plenty of examples where it has not been the case. The hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) drew our attention earlier to the example of pre-war Germany. There was also the example of the instability of Governments in France. Proportional representation is not a magic cure for these problems. The Committee should not be confused and bemused and bullied into taking a decision which, in their hearts, the overwhelming majority of hon. Members believe to be wrong and do not wish to take.
The arguments about timing are, in my view, false. The arguments about system are conclusive in proving that the regional list system is the worst possible form of PR. Until we have given the subject far more study, until we have examined this far more deeply, it would be wrong for us to take this major constitutional step by a side wind, merely to satisfy a few hon. Members in the Liberal Party. That is what we are being asked to do tonight. I hope that Conservative Members as well as Labour Members will join in overwhelming numbers to support the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), ensuring that the Committee accepts the amendment, thus giving us a first-past-the-post system in time for elections, not next June but at an early date thereafter.

Mr. George Reid: I hope to make a brief speceh, if only because my colleagues on the SNP Bench would prefer to keep our powder dry for the next list of amendments, which propose elections to the European Parliament by the alternative vote system. I am in some difficulty here and perhaps I could ask your guidance, Mr. Godman Irvine. These amendments are consequential on the defeat of the regional list proposal. Is it the intention, if the regional list


proposal falls, for the Chair to call it a day, or do we move at that stage to the amendments tabled by the SNP?

Mr. Powell: I raised this question last night, at the conclusion of the debate, with the Home Secretary, who confirmed that in the event specified by the hon. Member, he would move to report Progress.

Mr. Reid: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. In that event my best course of action is to put on record the fact that the SNP will abstain in the Division tonight dealing with the regional list system. By our own head count, though we may be wrong, we expect the regional list system to fall by a sizeable majority, even if the SNP group is in the Lobby led by the Home Secretary. Our thinking is quite simple. If the regional list system proposal is lost, we progress to single-Member constituencies and turn our minds to what many hon. Members have asked for, namely, single-Member seats and simultaneous electoral reform. The only way of doing that is by the alternative vote system.
The right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), casting a rather baleful eye on the two systems contained in the Bill, said that they were both "bad" systems. Such is his Europeanism, such is his determination to get us directly into the European Parliament as fast as possible, that he opted with no hesitation for the "bad" European regional list system.
8.45 p.m.
We in the Scottish National Party are not as desperate as all that. In our opinion there are other things in the EEC that need reform and attention before we have direct elections, such as reform of the common agricultural policy, the fisheries policy and a careful look at common energy objectives.
We also feel that there is no real intention—as the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) has stated—of meeting the target date of May or June next year. Very few of us expect to meet that date. I have been talking to French parliamentarians in recent weeks and found that they do not want to have French direct elections in a year in which there are French national elections as well. In this country it is obvious that the Prime

Minister would prefer to get a General Election out of the way before we come to European elections. I think that any desire for haste is therefore false.
The right hon. Member for Sidcup said that the regional list system was a bad system. If a Scottish nationalist may be allowed a touch of British nationalism for a moment, I find it quite alien that such a voting system should be imported into our polling booths. It will mean that there will be a monster ballot paper. In Scotland each elector will have one vote for between 30 and 40 candidates. One might as well have the ballot paper cast in the round. In Scotland, as elsewhere, candidates of the same party will be fighting candidates of the same party. In our part of the United Kingdom patronymics are still used, and there could be three or four McKays, McEwans or McSporrans on the same conglomerate voting paper.
I object also to the power of selection moving from the constituencies to the executives of the respective parties. It would not be impossible, given the regional list system, for the party hierarchy to say to a candidate: "Be a good boy, keep your nose clean, and you can go off to the fleshpots of Europe". That is not particularly desirable.
Nor is any account taken, with a regional list system, of the specific needs of different parts of the country. In Scotland the area covered by the Highlands and Islands Development Board has special needs in respect of fishing and oil, and its remoteness, as well as its strategic importance to the whole Western defence.
Only by the single-Member system can a seat be created there. Clearly the number of electors in the Highlands and Islands is small, and creating a constituency there means that the other Scottish seats will have to be correspondingly larger. I find it disappointing that the Liberal Party has gone for this poor system. In doing so Liberal Members are handing over the people in the Highlands and Islands to the "Strathclyde Mafia", who will undoubtedly determine who the candidates should be. There may be some hope that the Liberals will honour their pledge to give 10 seats to Scotland, so it may yet be possible to have


an extra seat for the Highlands and Islands.

Mr. Russell Johnston: The hon. Gentleman favours the alternative vote, which he claims is a proportional system. Perhaps the Australian election results have been brought to the hon. Gentleman's attention. The Labour Party there got 40 per cent of the votes and 28 per cent. of the seats while the Liberal Party there—which in Australia is a Conservative Party—got 38 per cent. of the votes and 53 per cent. of the seats. If that is a proportional system, I will eat my hat.
Secondly, may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether it is the case that the Scottish National Party is the only party in the House of Commons which is whipped on this vote and is therefore whipped against democracy?

Mr. Reid: In fact, we had a meeting earlier this evening to try to get that matter settled. Certain Members of the Scottish National Party might still vote for the regional list system if they feel so moved.
The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) will have to eat his hat. The whole business of electoral reform has to a large extent become one of semantics. If the hon. Gentleman has followed speeches made by myself and my colleagues over the past few years, he will know that we have not suggested adopting a system of proportional representation. We have talked about electoral reform, which is a different matter. We want a straight electoral reform which is much fairer than the present first-past-the-post system. If the hon. Gentleman will bide with me, I shall come to that point later.
I was dealing with the failings of the regional list system. The major failing is that the bond between the Member and his constituency falls. I appreciate that certain hon. Members would say that that bond is bound to go when dealing with electorates of 500,000 or 600,000. But, as the hon. Member for Southend, West said, American Senators seem to get by quite easily. Obviously the bond will not be the same kind as exists now between a Member of the House of Commons and his electorate. There will be no question of European MPs dealing with social

worker problems of the type that we deal with here.
But many industrialists, local government authorities and trade unions will want a clear channel of communication to their "man" in Europe, who will be the conduit for them into the institutions of the European Communities. The alternative—under the regional list—is for them to pick and choose. For example, in Scotland some people might say "We will write to a Socialist Member, but we had better get double cover by writing to a Tory Member and, to make absolutely sure, we had better write to a Scottish National Party Member of the European Parliament as well." That would lead to gross confusion.
It is also sad and alien to British parliamentary traditions that, under the regional list system, an individual should feel moved to see only the Member for whom he himself voted. That is quite wrong, because in the House of Commons—and I hope in the EEC as well—Members will be representatives of the whole community from which they are elected.
It could be argued that the next time round there will be regional list voting anyway, so why not get the whole thing clean cut and dried now? I find that a curious argument. I have no stomach for a European Community where everyone is doing the same thing, the same way, at the same time, all the time. That is the kind of mentality that has led us to the standardisation of eggs and, indeed, water that has posed the question whether Scotch whisky can go on the market because water in Scotland might be impure, and so on. European ideals should flourish from the diversity of all the European peoples.
For all those reasons the Scottish National Party is extremely hesitant about the regional list system. At the same time, in common with the right hon. Member for Sidcup, we are not keen on the first-past-the-post system, either. In time past that has led to blatant unfairness in representation, not least since the war, for the Liberal Party. It has also led to unfairness for the Scottish National Party, but, being open about it, since we are "regional", the effect has not been as continuingly adverse as it has been on the Liberal Party.
Under the first-past-the-post system, it would not be impossible in certain circumstances for England to be represented in the European Assembly exclusively by Conservative Members, for Wales to be represented exclusively by Socialist Members, and for Scotland to be represented exclusively by Scottish National Party Members. Our friends and neighbours in Europe would find that a crazy system. Indeed, there would be adverse effects on this Parliament if British representation in Europe were of that imbalanced kind.
All those reasons lead the Scottish National Party to the voting system under which, but for the financial crisis of 1931, all of us would have been elected anyway. Perhaps I may remind the Committee of a little history. The Labour Government of 1931 put through an alternative vote Bill. That measure went through all its stages in this place, but it got into difficulty in another place. At that point the then Labour Government determined to use the Parliament Act to force through the alternative vote Bill. That would have been the system now but for the financial crisis of 1931 intervening. That is the system by which Members of the Australian House of Representatives have been elected this week.
That brings be back to the tiff that I had earlier with the; hon. Member for Inverness. Under the alternative voting system, one has one vote which is marked 1, 2, 3, 4, in order of preference up to the total number of candidates. There is no wasted vote. Second preference comes into use if no candidate has 50 per cent. of the votes. The bottom candidate drops out and preferences are added up until one candidate has an absolute majority. Only AV results in a single-Member constituency with ties between the Member and the constituency and a winning candidate who must have broad majority popular support. That seems to my colleagues and myself to be an eminently sensible system.
The hon. Member for Mid-Oxon (Mr. Hurd) conceded something along similar lines. He wanted single-Member seats and electoral reform, and therefore he voted for the alternative-Member system, as did this Bench when the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) proposed it earlier, because two-thirds of the seats on the alternative-

Member system are single-Member seats. There are difficulties about using that for Community elections because that two-thirds of the seats would be single. Member seats and the topping-up list would be 27. Therefore, the whole of the United Kingdom would have to be one constituency, but that is the ultimate logic of regional lists anyway.
This has been a useful opportunity for the SNP to put its position on the record. We have a third option, and I hope that after Christmas it will be possible for the House to come back to it if the voting goes as I think it will tonight. For the reasons that I have given, the SNP will abstain.

Mr. Norman Buchan: I followed the speech of the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Reid) with interest. Unfortunately the system put forward by the SNP not only has the disadvantage that, in the only mathematical analysis that I have seen, it would have given that party an undue share of the seats as compared to the votes that it received, but has the added disadvantage that the alternative vote combines with the party list system. If it was the method put forward in the Scottish Bill, it would be on the same lines.
This comes to the kernel of the matter, and I want to speak about this aspect of the party list. I am in favour of anything that develops a more accurate consciousness that our political structure is basically a party political structure. I am all for people coming together in groups. There is no other way in which we can transform society. I am in favour of party politics, and even more so of recognising that in this place and elsewhere we do take part in party politics. That is one reason why I supported the writing in on the ballot paper of the party as well as the name of the candidate.
There is, however, a world of difference between that and saying that the party structure as expressed through the grass-roots political developments and the activities of people should become subordinated to the party structures and machinery. That is a big and significant difference.
The moment we have a party list system of that kind, even party politics here will fray, because those concerned will


have to keep their noses clean. What fertilises the whole body politic, what is the yeast in the mass, is the fact that the individual Member has not only a party base but a constituency one. From time to time a Member of Parliament has to challenge his party, and most things in history have happened because the individual Member has challenged the party and then won. I am not denigrating the party. On the contrary that sort of thing enhances it, but there has to be that vehicle by which the individual can move the party.
The trouble with the party list system is that we cut away this other base from a Member of Parliament. He cannot say "I do not care what my party says. I have my support locally. This I must do." Without that, the basic democracy of this place will fray, and through that the basic party political structure will become mechanical and bureaucratised and will sap the grass roots of the only hope that we have for the future, which are healthy grass roots.
That is my first point, that the system suggested is fatal for our representative democracy in this country and, indeed, in the long run for the party system itself, because we need to look at the specifics of the European situation to ask ourselves whom the Members represent. It is clear that they represent a party, on the one hand, in which they have played a part, and, on the other, an area of the Community.
But it is quite a different situation when the responsibility is not to the House of Commons—where party structures come to a head—but to a House elsewhere. The loyalties to the Community are fragmented because they are no longer representing a single community but a party and because they are only representing that party within Europe in so far as that party can join with other blocs. That then becomes their party. The direct party political links are severed because the direct link is with the European combination of parties.
9.0 p.m.
Our party system would follow suit. It also must move along in that direction. This is where we come to the thin end of the wedge. I have been told that this

does not matter because, after all, we introduced proportional representation in Northern Ireland. That is what my right hon. Friend argued today. He was in favour of it there and he said that this was not the thin end of the wedge. My right hon. Friend is encouraging this system in Europe. That is two out of three, or two-thirds of the way. We have proportional representation in Northern Ireland and he wants it in Europe.
The Northern Ireland system is not analogous. It was deliberately introduced because a community in Northern Ireland was not being represented at all under the existing system. It was not sharing in Government and never could unless the structure was altered. We were in a dangerous situation caused by the existence of a deprived community. This was why it was necessary to introduce proportional representation in Northern Ireland. It was not on a party basis but on a community basis.
The situation in Northern Ireland cannot be called in aid as a reason for having that system in Europe. It is not analogous to the party political divisions which we have in this country and the party political divisions that exist in Europe.
The thin end of the wedge is that once we have a structure in which the machinery of the party is at its strongest—that is to say, the creation of lists for Europe—the political alliances that we have here will move in that direction. There will be a swing to this country. It is not only the thin end of the wedge; it is the thick end of the wedge and must be opposed.
An hon. Member commented on my opinion that fairness is the last refuge of the West. I accept that certain forms of proportional representation come closer to fairness on election day. There is a greater relationship between the votes cast for a party and the Members who are returned. But there are two caveats to that. We do not know the extent to which that type of voting would continue under a PR system. That is the error that we make. Much alternative voting takes place already. People say that they are Liberal but vote Labour to keep out the Tories. They vote in a specific and tactical way.
The difference is that under our present system the voters are in control of their


votes. Under the proportional system voters cannot determine the end result of their votes. If I were one of the eight candidates for Scotland I might vote for myself and put in the right hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Prentice) because my vote would be added to the group list. That would be the reverse of what I wished to achieve.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Surely the hon. Member must concede that the situation he describes is the one which obtains now, because in many constituencies candidates are chosen by small party groups and are foisted thereafter on to traditional voting patterns.

Mr. Buchan: Of course, but that is done open-eyed, and the introduction of this party list system is the method calculated to destroy the grass roots of the party, which makes the selective process narrow and tight. We want to expand on that and to enlarge the selection process, but a withering away at the roots through handing it over to the party bureaucracy will weaken the process.
These choices are made open-eyed. If only a small group is selecting the local party candidate, that is its problem. That group will have to campaign for his acceptance. But the members of the group are not in a position of having to mobilise the vote in favour of a candidate and of then finding that that vote is used to elect the candidate they do not want. The regional list system is the only one which can produce the completely opposite effect to that which was intended when constituents cast their votes. Measures that against the unfairness of the ratio of votes cast to the numbers returned.
But it is unfair in another way, too—far more unfair than the unfairness I was describing. Not only does it happen that control is put into other hands by the mechanics of the structure, but it happens, too, through the process of politics.
There is one sure effect of proportional representation which is that it leads to a proliferation of parties. There is no point in my remaining for a long period on the large group system if the only consequence of that is that people who are voting for me are returning someone from a different part of the political spectrum. The consequence of the pro-

liferation of parties is a permanent coalition Government, which means a permanent centrist Government, and that means a permanent Government of the status quo. It is not possible to transform society unless people can vote consciously to achieve the kind of majority which will put into power a Government that will change the status quo, and this applies perhaps more to Europe than to Britain.
It applies even more to Europe because alongside me on that list there might be people who are not only far apart from me in the normal Left-Right political divisions but apart from me on the precise question of Europe. I might be standing in order to transform the Common Market, but the votes cast for me might go to returning someone on the list whose aim is to maintain Europe as it is or to move it towards a federal structure.

Mr. Roderick MacFarquhar: May I as a pro-European suggest to my hon. Friend, who is anti-European, that there might be another way in which the system he is advocating for the European Assembly elections may serve the opposite purpose to that which he seeks? It is that by having the first-past-the-post system one will give, since the system is familar to the people of this country, far greater legitimacy to European Members and far greater right for them to speak for their constituents than would be the case with a list system. I foresee a considerable challenge to Westminster MPs from directly-elected MPs elected on a first-past-the-post system.

Mr. Buchan: That is a siren voice, but I am non-seducible on the question of Europe. In other things I may be seducible, but not on this.
We are told that it does not matter which system we use because the European Parliament will not matter anyway. I do not believe it. The very fact of writing in the party list system means that party structures themselves will be more and more concerned with Europe because there they will have a more powerful voice than on the party structure leavened on a local basis.
If we think that by making the European Parliament more representative we are strengthening it, we should think again. If we strengthen it, it will demand


more power. We are told that the European Parliament is impotent anyway. If I could rephrase Lord Acton "All bodies seek power, impotent bodies seek absolute power". We have been warned.

Sir Frederic Bennett: At this late stage in the debate it is difficult to avoid repetition. I have no intention of speaking for long and standing in the way of others who wish to take part. There have been three points made that I wish to refute as one who is in favour of the first-past-the-post system.
First of all, the suggestion has been made over and over again—and I regret from the Front Bench—that those who feel as I do are responsible for the delay if it proves impossible to hold the direct elections next year. Whoever is responsible, it is not those of us who vote tonight according to our convictions. I profoundly resent the claim that I and others like me are standing in the way of European development in this field. It is better to wait longer for the election and get the system in which we believe.
I did not regard very happily the suggestions made earlier by certain Liberal Members that the two big parties are motivated by the thought that in the first-past-the-post system they are likely to do better. That may well be true. But we are politicians who belong to parties, and each of us wants his party to do best. But that is not the only reason why I favour the first-past-the-post system. In any case, if there is one group of hon. Members who have been motivated because a system favours their party, it is the Liberals.
Thirdly, I do not appreciate the argument that if one has large single-Member constituencies it will be impossible for Members to keep in touch with their constituencies. This produced the American example. I wonder if hon. Members have ever worked out the electorate of New York. On a first-past-the-post system New York with 20 million electors returns two senators. Not until now have we heard that it is impossible for one or two Members to represent 20 million, yet apparently it is undemocratic for a single Member to represent 450,000 people.
Nor have I heard the argument advanced comparing constituencies in this

country. No one has suggested that Torbay, with an electorate of 86,000, is any less democratic than others with only 40,000 or 50,000. Those advancing this argument should press for a complete redistribution of constituencies with fairer proportions all round. To come here at this late stage and produce an argument for a different matter is not valid.
I believe that whichever system we adopt, it will be very difficult to get anything other than an extremely low, unrepresentative poll at the first election. We should appreciate that this is an innovation for us and it will be very hard to awaken real public political interest and get anything other than a low poll. I hope that I am proved wrong, but I have this suspicion. Not only are we having an entirely new election in order to send Members to the European Parliament, but in addition we are to be asked to approve a complicated, novel and almost incomprehensible system. In such circumstances we can only expect a derisory poll.
If those who want to advance the cause of European unity are suggesting that in some mysterious way the people of this country will be more likely to participate fully in a system which they have never before seen and do not understand rather than one which they understand, with all its weaknesses, they are putting forward an argument that cannot be sustained.
9.15 p.m.
The suggestion has been made that in a few years time we shall all have to come round to a new system anyway. That suggestion is even more bogus than some of the others I have heard adduced. If there is on thing that is certain, as is clear to those who understand the Continental system, it is that those on the Continent will not accept the system which the Home Secretary set out for us today. Therefore, in any event, within a short period of time if we have to go to another system we shall have to go to a fresh one in any case. Therefore, that suggestion should play no part in our deliberations in this debate.

Mr. George Cunningham: Nothing is easier in this debate than to draw attention to some of the bizarre consequences that would follow if we adopted the regional list system.
Earlier in the debate I pointed out in an intervention that it would be possible for a group candidate, not an individual candidate, to get elected without having secured a single vote. Many members feel that al though that is possible under this system, it is so unlikely that it should be ignored. However, although that is the most extreme manifestation of the anomalies of the system, we should bear in mind that, even if we were to pass an amendment to make it impossible for a person to be elected if he or she receives no votes whatever, it would be possible to be elected on a small number of votes—and a much smaller number than that accorded to other candidates who had not been declared elected.
There are other anomalies about the system as at present proposed that are worth mentioning. For example, it would be possible for Angela Rippon to stand for election in every single region. She could make up her own name for her group and could stand in each region, with one accompanying candidate in that group. She would have to withdraw—although that is not provided for in the Bill—from every region in which she was declared elected, except one, and the nonentities who had stood in Angela Rippon's group with her would be elected on the vote attracted to Angela Rippon. Such anomalies cannot be avoided in the proposed system.
For the moment we should take our minds away from those anomalies to the basic matter of principle. I have been recollecting in the course of the debate a phrase that appears at the beginning of one of Sir Louis Namier's great historical works in which he says that if the House of Commons had to consist of the 600 heaviest men and women in the country, the political parties and the various national interests could be counted on to secure their appropriate weight. In this debate people seem to be assuming that fairness and rectitude in elections consist in getting the proportion of the legislature which one is electing as near as possible to the proportion of that party's vote in the poll. I see the Liberal Bench agrees with that statement.
It has also been said in the debate that the system for which we are asked by the Government to vote is peculiarly suited to these European elections, even if it is

not suited to other types of elections. I argue that this system is pecularly unsuited to these European elections—perhaps not to European elections at some future date, but certainly unsuited in this respect for the reason that the division of opinion between political parties on matters in general is not congruent to the division of opinion on Europe.
If the people of this country are to have any effect within the European Parliament, they should be exercising their votes for the European Parliament not according to whether they are proor anti-Europe, because that is a decision whether we stay in or out of the Common Market which belongs here and which will continue to be exercised here. They ought to be able to exercise their vote with regard to the European Legislature according to whether they were—for lack of a better word—fast or slow European people, according to whether they want European union to move quickly and severely or slowly and gently. We all know that there are fast and slow men within the Labour Party and fast and slow within the Tory Party—that is, within the two principal parties. We know, as a matter of practice—that was reflected in the language that the Home Secretary used in introducing the debate—that the groups that will stand in the election will be mostly party groups.
If the groups that were to stand in the election were to be fast or slow folk, with one group standing as those who believed in European federation, monetary union within 10 years and so on, irrespective of the party that they belonged to, and, on the other hand, the slow Europeans standing as a group, irrespective of the party that they belonged to, the electorate would have a real choice under the system proposed by the Government. However, as long as there is a non-congruent division of opinion, where the elector is wanting to choose, as he is traditionally accustomed to choosing, between the political parties, and at the same time wanting—and really having—to choose between different policy options with regard to Europe, the system cannot work.
The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) has frequently interrupted speakers in the debate to point out that now, with the single-Member constituency


system in this place, the voter's vote can have secondary consequences that he does not like—but the voter does know before he casts his vote. Under this proposed system he would have no way of knowing what the secondary consequences of his vote would be.
For example, in the London region my guess is that the Labour Party would put up eight anti-Europeans—for lack of a better term—eight slow Europeans and, to show our broadmindedness, two fast Europeans. The anti-European voters would vote for somebody in the Labour group and would have eight possibilities to choose from, and the anti-European Labour vote would be spread among eight possible candidates, so their personal votes would be relatively low. However, the two fast European Labour candidates would attract to themselves a considerable number of votes deriving from pro-European Labour voters. The number of seats allocated to the Labour group would be determined by the totality of personal votes which would be principally anti-European personal votes, but which of the candidates actually got the seats would be determined by the personal vote for each of the candidates. Therefore, Labour anti-Market voters would find that they had ensured that six of the seats went to Labour, but also, by secondary consequences that they could not predict and did not intend, that two of those people were pro-European Labour Members or, I should say, fast European Labour Members.

Mr. A. J. Beith: The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) is advancing a good case for the single transferable vote which allows the voter to express a wide range of preferences. Will the hon. Member say whether he will support its inclusion? He is not supporting the first-past-the-post system which leaves the voter with no choice because every time the Labour Party decides to put forward a fast European the voted is unable to vote slow.

Mr. Cunningham: I agree with the first part of the hon. Gentleman's intervention, but that is not an option before us and the whole thing is complicated enough without considering options upon which we do not have a choice later tonight. I disagree with the second

point. In my constituency, a fast European Labour voter has a dilemma because he wants to vote for me as the Labour candidate but he knows that I am an ultra-slow European. He knows that he has that dilemma and he has to weigh it up and decide to what he attaches greater importance.
The difference is that with the regional list system he knows that there may be secondary consequences which he does not intend, but he does not know what they will be. He has no way of controlling them. There is no way of avoiding that dilemma unless we submit every issue to a referendum, because people may agree with me on most issues, but disagree on one or two. We cannot avoid that difficulty except by referendum, but at least we can face voters with the choice which is plainly before them so that they know the nature of the dilemma and can put as price upon the two sides of the balance. It is not a difficulty which applies, to the same extent, in regard to the present system. There are regrettable secondary consequences in both systems, but with one a voter knows what they are and can weigh them up. Under the other system, he does not know what they are and therefore cannot weigh them up.
For all these reasons, this proposed system is peculiarly unsuited to this European election in which, as we know—though it could be different in future—the division of opinion on European matters is within parties and not between parties. If that changes, it would be appropriate to have this sort of system.
If we want the electorate to be sadly and severely disillusioned about whether elections to the European Parliament mean anything, this is the sort of system that we should face them with. They will vote and will end up with, say, fast European Labour Members when they were trying to express a slow European point of view. This will lead to deep disillusionment and low polls. There will be a feeling comparable to that experienced when one reverses a car with a caravan at the back. The way one steers has a perverse relationship to where one ends up.

Mr. Crouch: Is not the hon. Gentleman confusing the House? He talks about fast European Members making


Europe go fast by their being in the European Assembly. Surely the speed at which Europe proceeds will be determined by national Parliaments?

Mr. Cunningham: I wish that I thought so. It is true that if this Parliament had any red blood flowing through its veins, it would be capable of making the Community go fast if we had the support of other countries in Europe or stopping it from going fast, even without the co-operation of others. However, nothing in our experience suggests that this Parliament has any blood flowing in its veins and there is every likelihood that the European Parliament, without formal powers, will, nevertheless, acquire power. There is a difference between power and powers and when it is directly elected, even by this unsatisfactory system, that Parliament will acquire power. As has been pointed out many times, the Parliament in Europe possesses that single power which is sufficient to build upon, namely, the power to dismiss the Executive.
For all these reasons, I think that we should stick to the first-past-the-post system for these elections.

9.30 p.m.

Sir David Renton: The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) has done the Committee a service by revealing further defects in the system of the regional list. I am known to favour proportional representation, but tonight I shall vote for "first past the post." I welcome the opportunity to say why. The speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Oxon (Mr. Hurd) so nearly represents my view that I can now afford to be brief.
We are faced with Hobson's choice, with two alternatives which a large proportion of hon. Members do not welcome. We do not welcome either of them. The regional party list is not a satisfactory form of proportional representation. I hope that the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury will not take it amiss if I say that in arranging such a list the party managers of his party might find it difficult to fit in anyone so independently minded as the hon. Gentleman. I feel that it is a system under which the people would not readily go out and vote in an election. They would not be enthu-

siastic in their support for it. I do not say that the complexities would be beyond them, although I think that they are more politically mature than electorally sophisticated.
I have an instinct that if we wish the first election to a European Parliament to be a success, we should choose something more simple than the regional list system. That is one of the reasons that leads me to be against it.
Ideally, we should be aiming for the additional Member system, which offers the best of both worlds. The simple lead-in to the additional-Member system is the first-past-the-post system, and so I shall vote for first past the post.

Mr. Reid: Is not the logic of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument that the whole United Kingdom must be a single constituency? To create an extra third Members for AMS would mean 27 Members. In Scotland it would be impossible to work the AMS on a regional list basis with only eight Members.

Sir D. Renton: I have been into the simple arithmetic. Unfortunately, the starred amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) is not before the Committee. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to forgive me for not taking up the time of the Committee to argue the arithmetic with him. However, I believe that it would be feasible, although I agree that it would be a rough and ready exercise. If the Committee carries the first-past-the-post system tonight, at a later stage, either during discussion on the clause or on Report, we can consider going over to the additional-Member system. That is possible.
I shall vote for first-past-the-post for two main reasons. The first is that the people will like it and understand it. They will not find it unfamiliar. Secondly, it is the best lead-in to the additional-Member system.
When we consult our European partners on the ultimate system of voting we shall find almost certainly that there are others who think the same way as many of us about the additional-Member system. The Germans have it already in a slightly different form from that favoured by many hon. Members. The French have a variation of the first-past-the-post system. They have a second vote if there


is no clear decision the first time. Both of those situations would enable the British, the French and the Germans to get together to consult the other six countries and to persuade them to decide, perhaps, that the additional-Member system might be the best. If we have the first-past-the-post system, that will be the easiest lead-in.

Mr. Rathbone: One point that has not yet been made in the debate is that the Germans have moved from the additional-Member system to a regional list system for European elections.

Sir D. Renton: All that I can say is that that is regrettable but does not invalidate my argument, because I do not under-estimate the powers of persuasion of British Foreign Secretaries and other representatives of the Government, from whichever party they may come.

Mr. Dykes: rose—

Sir D. Renton: I have promised to be very brief, so I cannot give way again.
I conclude by making a short point about the timing. As one who once had to help pilot a Boundary Commission Bill through the House, I am sure that all kinds of things could be quoted against me in the light of what I must now say. I am disillusioned by our now traditional procedure for treating the reports of Boundary Commissions. Seeing the Prime Minister in his place reminds me of the last time we had the reports of the independent Boundary Commissions for England and Wales, the preparation of which is a quasi-judicial process. We ought to have been glad to accept the reports, but, for various reasons that I need not go into now, we had interminable, sordid discussions late at night and many of the Commissions' recommendations were voted down.
Therefore, I say that we should either write into the Bill—and it may be a rough and ready exercise—what the constituencies are to be, as some of my hon. Friends and others have tried to do, or let the Boundary Commissions get on with the matter and we accept their decision, and not take up another two or three weeks discussing them and upsetting this quasi-judicial exercise for party political purposes.

Mr. John Mendelson: In the course of the debate a number of technical arguments have been advanced, but I do not believe that the technical arguments will carry the same weight as the matter of principle when the decision is taken. Everyone knows—certainly every hon. Member realizes—that a major decision is to be taken tonight.
However much some hon. Members, including some of my hon. Friends, have occasionally painted a picture of a bizarre or baroque outcome under a particular system, it is no part of my case to oppose proportional representation because occasionally there may be such a baroque outcome. We could not base a decision of major importance upon such occasional miscarriages of any system, whichever system might be adopted.
The case that must be met was made particularly, not for the first time, by the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), a former Leader of the Conservative Party. I disagreed with a number of his detailed arguments, as did many other hon. Members. His argumentation was weak, but that does not detract from the principle that he advanced.
The right hon. Gentleman's analogy with the American Congress and the history of the Continental Congress was historically quite unsound, as he will realise when he reads his speech tomorrow. It is incorrect to suggest that all that was in the minds of the people who created the United States Congress when the first Continental Congress was elected was to have a representative organ. We must remember that there had been legislative assemblies in the States long before the first Continental Congress was elected, and that therefore legislative purposes were very much in the minds of those who created the first Congress. Therefore, it is quite wrong to suggest that there can be any analogy between what was in their minds and the purposes of the European Assembly that we are discussing.
It is equally wrong to suggest that the present position of the House of Representatives, as the right hon. Member for Sidcup said, and the European Parliament have anything in common. That is common ground so far. The argumentation was unusually weak for the right hon. Gentleman, but I deliberately repeat


that it should not detract from the importance of the principle that he advanced. I am opposed to that principle because I do not believe that a movement, however slow, in the direction of having a proportional representation system is in the best interests of the people of this country. That is my main argument and the main burden of my case.
We need not attack each other too much for suspecting that somebody wants to move very fast towards a system which gives more and more powers to a European Parliament. All I know is that the present position and the present argument may be summed up in two propositions. In the Common Market countries I do not know of anybody who advances seriously the reasons for direct elections to the European Parliament who does not at the same time wish for an extension of the powers of that Parliament. In Holland and a number of other countries, people would regard it as rather offensive if one were to suggest that, as they are arguing for a European Parliament, they want that European Parliament to be powerless. Therefore, we have to face the fact that the purpose is an increase in powers and it is absolutely essential that when deciding upon the system of elections we should keep that in mind.
I believe that the strength of the British system is the close connection between the single Member for a single constituency and all the electors in that constituency. I believe that that, as the right hon. Member for Sidcup said, is something to which many people in the Continental countries have looked forward for many years, and when they said that they expected Britain to give some lead, they did not expect that we would abandon the strongest part of our system as soon as we joined the Common Market.

Mr. Dykes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Mendelson: No, there is no time.
That is the governing factor in the international situation. The position at home—I say this particularly to the Liberal Members who are present—is that people who have come to try and persuade me in the Liberal interests—I have met people from more than one part of the country, not only from my own constituency—have all frankly told me that their major aim is to see a transformation

of the political and electoral system in the United Kingdom in the direction of proportional representation. They have been much more frank and outspoken about that than have the representatives of the Liberal Party in the debate today.

Mr. Russell Johnston: indicated dissent.

Mr. Mendelson: It is no use the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) disowning his own supporters. There is a major campaign going on. It is not very nice for the hon. Member to disown his own supporters.
We even know that the Leader of the Liberal Party is under duress. He has been told by no less august a body than the Liberal Council that a special assembly will be called to depose him if he does not make headway in the matter of PR. That has led to some pressure being put on my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. That is common knowledge. I am not telling the Committee anything new. That is the governing factor as far as the domestic political situation is concerned. The Liberals are perfectly entitled to it. But the result will be permanent coalition government in this country. There is no question about that.
I believe that it is in the best interests of the people of this country to be able to make a clear choice. If they want a Labour Government, they ought to be able to have a Labour Government. If they want to have a Conservative Government, they ought to be able to have a Conservative Government. If some bright day they want a Liberal Government, they ought to be able to have a Liberal Government. Certainly Mr. Asquith and Mr. David Lloyd George would have found no fault with the proposition that I am now advancing. The evidence is that they were fighting in the Liberal interest in the great days of Liberal Administrations. They never changed the system. They thought that it was a good system because it made it possible for them to have a clear position as the Government as well. The governing factor in the decision and this debate, as right hon. and hon. Gentlemen will know, ought to be one of principle and not a blurring of the issue.
Coalition government always leads to blurred responsibility. What is good is


a Government formed by one political party. The strength in that system, as Disraeli always held, is that it is clearly accountable to the electorate. If the electorate does not like what the Government are doing, they know whom to blame. If they like what they are doing, they know what to approve.
9.45 p.m.
We do not have coalition government at the moment. We have only some agreement. But we are already seeing Liberal Members touring the country and trying to tell the electorate that they control the Labour Cabinet and the Chancellor of the Exchequer and have the greatest possible influence on the Prime Minister.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Does not the hon. Gentleman recognise that we are talking about the European Assembly, which does not produce a Government?

Mr. Mendelson: I am talking about the real purpose of the Liberal campaign for a change in the system. Liberal Members do not like it. I did not expect that they would like it. But they are touring the country pretending that anything that is done right by my right hon. Friends is done under their inspiration and that anything that goes wrong is solely the responsibility of my right hon. Friends. That is years ahead of any possibility of a system under PR.
For all these rather serious reasons I call upon all hon. Members who believe in the strength of our traditional voting system and in the future of democratic government in this country, to support the amendment moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey).

Mr. David Howell: It is correct to say that most of my hon. Friends—not all—want direct elections and want to see the Bill go through. They would have liked to see the target date of May/June achieved.
That brings me straight away to the question of timing, which has been a central issue running through many of the speeches this afternoon. What has emerged is that the chances of making the May/June target under either system—the multi-Member system or the single-

Member system—are now absolutely minimal. If one is asked why, the answer is that unless the business of the House and the whole of the Government's programme after Christmas undergo a great revolution, of which there is no sign at all, there is no chance of getting this business through before mid-May. The only way of getting it through would be under a successful timetable motion, but the chances of getting it through before the middle of May, well after Easter, are absolutely minimal and virtually negligible even with a successful timetable motion.
The Home Secretary tells us that following Royal Assent we would need a further three months before elections could take place. If we add three months to the Royal Assent date of mid-May, we are into August and August, of course, means that we miss the May/June date.
I therefore believe that it is the conclusion of the Committee that timing is not the factor in choosing between one system and the other which some hon. Members and some people outside the House of Commons have tried to suggest it is. This enables us to turn to the basic criteria on which we should decide between the two systems before us. Like other right hon. and hon. Members, I can offer only a personal view of the main considerations. Let me offer three quick comments before the Home Secretary speaks at the end of the debate: I do not want to detain the Committee.
First, I think that we should all pause long and think hard before doing away with the single-Member constituency idea and the golden thread, as it has been called, that links the elected Member with his constituency. I know that some will say that the topping-up system of PR—the list system—could cover both PR and the single-Member constituency. That is not what is proposed in the Bill and we have no means at the moment of getting it into the Bill.
Secondly, we should hesitate long before bringing in a brand-new and, by everyone's admission, a somewhat bizarre system of multi-Member constituencies, using a regional list system of proportional representation which would be for one election—perhaps for two—and then altered again. That cannot be the right way to conduct such changes.
Thirdly, I say let us beware of mixing innovations. The introduction of direct elections is a major constitutional innovation. There are many hon. Members who have spoken against it quite sincerely. Many have doubts about it. I do not. I believe that we should go forward, but we must be wary of mixing that great innovation with another, namely, the idea of bringing proportional representation into our nation-wide, kingdom-wide elections.
If I am asked to express the strongest view of all about this amendment it is that I do not see why we should be asked to smuggle through a new electoral system of the under-belly of this Bill in some sort of perverted Homeric episode. If there is a case for PR, I do not believe that it should be brought before us in this way. It would have been far wiser to keep these matters apart. It would have been wiser for the Government to seek to keep them apart from the first, although, as we know, other considerations have prevailed.
Let us go ahead with the Bill and do our best, even at this miserably late stage, when delay has made so many difficulties. It is right to say that supporting the amendment will not hinder and could well help the process of getting the Bill through. That is why I shall support the amendment tonight, and I hope that many of my hon. Friends will do so, too.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) mentioned earlier a problem he said he faced, namely, that in these elections—I think he was referring to the regional list system—it might be that in London there would be two "slow" Europeans and eight "fast" Europeans. He was suggesting that people would want to pick and choose between Labour or Conservative candidates under the new system. General Election results, whatever the views in various parts of the Conservative or Labour parties, show that we all seem to go up and down with the same swing, whatever our individual views. I would imagine that much the same thing would happen in this proposed system.

Mr. George Cunningham: That is what is wrong with it.

Mr. Rees: I found the speech of the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr.

Craig) interesting in two respects. He told us how he felt in a regional Assembly sharing a constituency with others. I understood how he felt. I make it clear that in asking the Committee to reject the amendment we are not asking for a vote in favour of PR in any other form of assembly. This is not a Trojan horse or the thin end of the wedge. It is a method of voting for the European Assembly, for which it is appropriate.
The hon. Member for Mid-Oxon (Mr. Hurd) talked about the regional list system as being unusual. The hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) called it bizarre. The regional list system is to be used in many countries in Europe; it is proposed to be used for elections for the European Assembly. Bizarre it may well be, in which case we are in good company. Unusual it is not.
I am sensitive to the problems of Northern Ireland, to which we shall come in the New Year. Those are problems for another day. The right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) raised an important issue when he said that in Northern Ireland, in the February 1974 elections, because of the small number of constituencies—12 compared with 78 in the Assembly—what happened was that the minority party won only one seat out of the 12. It may have been two in the February election and one in the October election.
It is exactly the same in the context that we are discussing here. We are talking not about 635 constituencies, but about 81 constituencies. There is no doubt that with 81 constituencies for Europe, if we go through the normal method of election, the slightest swing will result in the parties in this country being under-represented in the councils of Europe. We are talking about an Assembly that does not spawn a Government, a body which is advisory and supervisory. The list system is appropriate for Europe. A different type of representative will be created, perhaps with a regional interest that is not in competition with the House of Commons.
The major matter that we must face before we vote tonight is that of timing, on which we spoke last night and to which the hon. Member for Guildford returned. Whether the election is on the first-past-the-post system, in the first


instance, or the regional list system, timing is important
In regard to the first-past-the-post system, there is no question of the Government introducing a scheme that bypasses the Boundary Commission or that is based on the counties. If the Committee chooses the first-past-the-post system, there is no doubt that there will be timing problems, not out of any dilatoriness—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh?"] The fact remains that a minority Government are very much in the hands of the Committee, and it is the Committee that will decide tonight. If there is a problem with timing—and there will be with first past the post—the Committee must decide what it is doing when hon. Members vote, as they will in a few moments.
In regard to first past the post, the hon. Member for Guildford quoted some figures back at me. I think that he quoted them correctly. Undoubtedly, with first past the post the chances of being ready for May/June are very remote.

Mr. Jim Spicer: Will the Home Secretary say where the fault lies if we are not

ready for the first-past-the-post system in May? Does it lie with the Opposition or the Government?

Mr. Rees: The problem is that for the last 18 months we have had a minority Government, and that is a major factor in controlling the House of Commons. If the Committee chooses the first-past-the-post system, it will be deciding that the chances of being ready for May/June are remote.
If the Committee votes for the regional list system, which has many advantages in the context of Europe, we can be ready for May/June. It is for the Committee to decide which system it wants. Timing is in the hands of the Committee.
In recommending the Committee to vote against the amendment I ask hon. Members to take the timing into account. The regional list system is appropriate for Europe, and I recommend it on behalf of the Government.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 319, Noes 222.

Division No. 50]
AYES
[9.59 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Callaghan, Jim (Middlelon &amp; P)
Evans, John (Newton)


Aitken, Jonathan
Canavan, Dennis
Eyre, Reginald


Alison, Michael
Carmichael, Neil
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Allaun, Frank
Carson, John
Farr, John


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Fell, Anthony


Arnold, Tom
Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Churchill, W. S.
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Flannery, Martin


Atkinson, David (Bournemouth, East)
Clark, William (Croydon S)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Atkinson, Norman
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Clegg, Walter
Fookes, Miss Janet


Banks, Robert
Clemitson, Ivor
Forman, Nigel


Bell, Ronald
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Forrester, John


Bonn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Cope, John
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Cormack, Patrick
Fox, Marcus


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Corrie, John
Fraser Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Costain, A. P.
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Bidwell, Sydney
Cowans, Harry
Fry, Peter


Biffen, John
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.


Biggs-Davison, John
Crowder, F. P.
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Blaker, Peter
Cryer, Bob
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)


Body, Richard
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Deakins, Eric
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Dempsey, James
Glyn, Dr Alan


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Doig, Peter
Goodhart, Philip


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Dormand, J. D.
Goodhew, Victor


Bradford, Rev Robert
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Gorst, John


Braine, Sir Bernard
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Gould, Bryan


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Dunlop, John
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)


Brittan, Leon
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Brotherton, Michael
Durant, Tony
Gray, Hamish


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Eadie, Alex
Grieve, Percy


Bryan, Sir Paul
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Griffiths, Eldon


Buchan, Norman
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Grist, Ian


Buck, Anthony
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Grocott, Bruce


Budgen, Nick
Emery, Peter
Grylls, Michael


Burden, F. A.
English, Michael
Hall, Sir John


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)




Hannam, John
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Madden, Max
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoak[...])


Hastings, Stephen
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Rooker, J. W.


Hatton, Frank
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Marten, Neil
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Hawkins, Paul
Mates, Michael
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Hayman, Mrs Helene
Mather, Carol
Royle, Sir Anthony


Heffer, Eric S.
Mawby, Ray
Ryman, John


Heseltine, Michael
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Scott-Hopkins, James


Higgins, Terence L.
Maynard, Miss Joan
Sedgemore, Brian


Hodgson, Robin
Meacher, Michael
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Holland, Philip
Mendelson, John
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Hordern, Peter
Mikardo, Ian
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Shepherd, Colin


Howell, David (Guildford)
Mills, Peter
Shersby, Michael


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Moate, Roger
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Molloy, William
Short, Mrs Rénee (Wolv NE)


Huckfield, Les
Molyneaux, James
Silvester, Fred


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Monro, Hector
Sims, Roger


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Montgomery, Fergus
Skeet, T. H. H.


Hunter, Adam
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Skinner, Dennis


Hurd, Douglas
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Small, William


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Morgan, Geraint
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Spearing, Nigel


Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Speed, Keith


Janner, Greville
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Spence, John


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Mudd, David
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Jeger, Mrs Lena
Neave, Airey
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Nelson, Anthony
Spriggs, Leslie


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Neubert, Michael
Sproat, Iain


Jessel, Toby
Newens, Stanley
Stainton, Keith


Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Noble, Mike
Stanbrook, Ivor


Jopling, Michael
Normanton, Tom
Stanley, John


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Nott, John
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
O'Halloran, Michael
Stoddart, David


Kerr, Russell
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Stokes, John


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Orbach, Maurice
Stradling Thomas, J.


Kimball, Marcus
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Tapsell, Peter


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Osborn, John
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Page, John (Harrow West)
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Knight, Mrs Jill
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Tebbit, Norman


Lamond, James
Page, Richard (Workington)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Lamont, Norman
Paisley, Rev Ian
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Parkinson, Cecil
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Pattie, Geoffrey
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Lawrence, Ivan
Pavitt, Laurie
Tierney, Sydney


Lawson, Nigel
Pendry, Tom
Torney, Tom


Lee, John
Percival, Ian
Trotter, Neville


Le Marchant, Spencer
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Urwin, T. W.


Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Prescott, John
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Wakeham, John


Litterick, Tom
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Lomas, Kenneth
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Loveridge, John
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Warren, Kenneth


Loyden, Eddie
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Weatherill, Bernard


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Wells, John


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


McCartney, Hugh
Richardson, Miss Jo
Wiggin, Jerry


McCrindle, Robert
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


McCusker, H.
Ridsdale, Julian
Winterton, Nicholas


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Macfarlane, Neil
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Woof, Robert


MacGregor, John
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)



MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Mr. Phillip Whitehead and


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Robinson, Geoffrey
Mr. Paul Channon.


McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Roderick, Caerwyn





NOES


Anderson, Donald
Bottomley, Peter
Cockroft, John


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Bradley, Tom
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)


Armstrong, Ernest
Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Colquhoun, Ms Maureen


Ashley, Jack
Brooke, Peter
Concannon, J. D.


Awdry, Daniel
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Conlan, Bernard


Baker, Kenneth
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Corbett, Robin


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)


Bates, Alf
Bulmer, Esmond
Crawshaw, Richard


Bean, R. E.
Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Critchley, Julian


Beith, A. J.
Cant, R. B.
Cronin, John


Benyon, W.
Carlisle, Mark
Crouch, David


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Carter, Ray
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)


Boardman, H.
Cartwright, John
Davidson, Arthur


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)







Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Judd, Frank
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Kaufman, Gerald
Sandelson, Neville


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Kershaw, Anthony
Scott, Nicholas


de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Sever, John


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Knox, David
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Lambie, David
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lamborn, Harry
Sillars, James


Drayson, Burnaby
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Silverman, Julius


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Sinclair, Sir George


Dunnett, Jack
Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Dykes, Hugh
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Edge, Geoff
Lipton, Marcus
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Lloyd, Ian
Snape, Peter


Ennals, Rt Hon David
Luard, Evan
Stallard, A. W.


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Fairgrieve, Russell
McElhone, Frank
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Faulds, Andrew
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Stott, Roger


Fisher, Sir Nigel
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Strang, Gavin


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Maclennan, Robert
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Magee, Bryan
Temple-Morris, Peter


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Marks, Kenneth
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Freud, Clement
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


George, Bruce
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Tomlinson, John


Gilbert, Dr John
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Townsend, Cyril D.


Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
Mayhew, Patrick
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Ginsburg, David
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Viggers, Peter


Golding, John
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Goodlad, Alastair
Miscampbell, Norman
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Gourlay, Harry
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Graham, Ted
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Grant, John (Islington C)
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Walters, Dennis


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Ward, Michael


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Newton, Tony
Watkins, David


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Oakes, Gordon
Watkinson, John


Hampson, Dr Keith
Ogden, Eric
Weetch, Ken


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Ovenden, John
Weitzman, David


Haselhurst, Alan
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Wellbeloved, James


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Palmer, Arthur
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Hayhoe, Barney
Pardoe, John
Whitlock, William


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Parker, John
Wigley, Dafydd


Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Penhaligon, David
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Hooley, Frank
Perry, Ernest
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Hooson, Emlyn
Phipps, Dr Colin
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Horam, John
Price, William (Rugby)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Prior, Rt Hon James
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Radice, Giles
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Raison, Timothy
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Rathbone, Tim
Woodall, Alec


Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Rhodes James, R.
Young, David (Bolton E)


John, Brynmor
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Rifkind, Malcolm
Younger, Hon George


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)



Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Roper, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Rose, Paul B.
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Mr. Donald Coleman.


Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Question accordingly agreed to.

To report Progress and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): I understand that the business motion is not to be moved.

Committee report Progress; to sit again tomorrow.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (SOCIAL SECURITY)

10.17 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Services (Mr. Eric Deakins): I beg to move
That this House takes note of Commission Document No. R/48/77 on Equal Treatment in Social Security.
This draft directive on the progressive implementation of the principle of equality of treatment for men and women in matters of social security is presently under consideration by the Social Questions Working Group of the Council of the European Communities in Brussels.
Under the directive, which implements one of the EEC's Social Action Programme objectives in relation to equal treatment of men and women, member States would be bound to eliminate progressively differences in their national legislations as to entitlement of men and women in the fields of medical care, loss of earnings through sickness or unemployment, old age, employment, accident or occupational disease and invalidity.
The directive applies to social security benefits, certain social assistance arrangements and occupational pensions schemes. It provides for equality in terms of cover and eligibility for benefit, rates of benefit including increases for dependants, and duration and conditions of benefit. The directive does not, however, apply to provisions for widowhood, maternity and family allowances, and member States would not be bound to change arrangements whereby women can retire earlier Than men, count for benefit periods spent outside employment—for instance, during pregnancy—and derive rights from a husband's insurance.
I understand that the view taken by the Commission is that the draft directive would apply only to the present and former working population, including the self-employed and the unemployed, and not to benefits designed for other groups.
As at present drafted, the directive provides that the provisions concerned with personal benefits must be brought into force within two years of its adoption those concerned with payments for dependants within three years, and those regar-

ding occupational pensions schemes within four years.
The Government agree with the principles underlying the directive. There has never been any discrimination in access to the National Health Service; we have already taken steps to eliminate two of the major discriminatory features in social security, the lower rate of sickness benefit and unemployment benefit and the retirement pension half-test which applied only to married women; our own proposals for legislation in the occupational pensions field would go a long way towards satisfying the letter of the directive as at present drafted; and the current review of the supplementary benefits scheme is examining, among other things, ways of achieving equal treatment between the sexes.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Could my hon. Friend give us some guidance and indicate why an exception has been made about retirement? Why should differences in the retirement ages remain in the terms of the draft directive? What are the arguments for this?

Mr. Deakins: My hon. Friend has anticipated me a little. I shall come to this point. Obviously there are things that are missing from the directive.
As the directive is drafted, there is, however, one area of social security which we cannot regard as at all satisfactory. This is the provision which would allow married women to claim increases for the children of the family, in the same way as their husbands do, each time they were sick or unemployed. This would cost an additional £10 million annually, rising over the years to £50 million at current benefit rates as more married women became insured; and virtually all this additional expense would go to families where the husband was in full-time employment and his earnings were continuing without interruption.
If additional resources of this order were available, there are other changes in the social security field which would command much greater priority; and we shall therefore be doing our best in the discussions of the directive which are taking place at official level to ensure that the terms of the directive are amended.

Mrs. Audrey Wise: My hon. Friend said that "virtually all" this would go to families where husbands were in full-time work. What about enlarging the provision to cover those cases where the husband is not in full-time work? How much would that cost?

Mr. Deakins: We are looking at a number of these matters and I hope that I shall be allowed to reply to the debate later when I shall take account of all the points that have been raised. We are not saying a flat "No" in this case; we are simply saying that it would cost a lot extra and because of that cost there would have to be many changes made in our social security legislation.
In occupational pension schemes there are some differences of treatment between men and women which cannot be dealt with in the immediate future. We agree with their exclusion from the scope of the directive, and there are other minor but important changes in it which we would like to see made in the course of the negotiations in Brussels
I come back now to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Mr. Roberts) on the difference in pension ages. This has been noted on the Continent as well as here because most countries have inequality in retirement ages. Perhaps my hon. Friend would look at the opinion of the European Assembly and that of the European Economic and Social Committee. Both these bodies are fully aware that this directive does not go as far as my hon. Friend and many other hon. Members would like. Knowing his views, I think he would find some encouragement for the future in the fact that this is the first directive and that others may follow on other aspects that are of more immediate concern to him.
The directive has been considered by the Economic and Social Committee of the EEC and by the European Assembly, each of which has given its opinions on its scope and coverage. Discussions in Brussels will continue in the light of these opinions. There are complex problems to be overcome, not merely in this country but the Government will continue to work towards Community agreement on this measure. Meantime, however, I welcome this debate for the opportunity

it gives me and the Government of hearing the views of hon. Members on this important subject.

10.25 p.m.

Mrs. Lynda Chalker: We welcome this opportunity to discuss the draft directive. The words "progressive implementation" in Document R/48/77 are a relieving factor because if ever some of these measures were to be taken quickly, I believe that neither this country nor any of the European countries could cope with the situation.
We welcome the directive for a number of reasons. In the last few years our legislation has been moving consistently in the direction of trying to assist women towards equal treatment in all ways. Some of the questions I wish to pose tonight to the Minister arise out of lack of information on pensions matters and the detailed requirements of this directive.
I wish to refer to some of the comments made in the Sixteenth Report of the Select Committee on European Legislation and I wish to ask a few questions about the European Committee on Social Affairs. It might be helpful to iron out some of the outstanding questions.
First, we note that the Select Committee pointed out that there was a need for fundamental changes in the structure of benefits, especially dependency benefits. I hope that when the Minister replies he will say something about what he understands those fundamental changes to be. I accept that it means that married women will have the same rights to these benefits as do married men, but the Committee appears to have thought that it meant more far-reaching changes than the Minister intimated in his remarks tonight.
The Committee also spoke of the payment of invalid care allowance to married women. This would need to be paid to married women so that the system is brought into line with the directive. The Committee also spoke of the difficulty of ensuring equality between men and women in pension matters. The other matter noted by the Committee was the absence from the original directive of any provision to maintain the right of existing members of occupational pension schemes to any unequal benefits earned before the date of implementation of the directive. I hope that the Minister will


say whether we may take account of that, and whether he will be pressing for a special provision to look after those rights in the negotiations which he will be conducting in Brussels.
I note that the Committee of Social Affairs welcomed this important initial directive towards achieving the principle of equality between men and women in social security matters. It goes on to comment that it notes.
with satisfaction that the Community is taking a lead in the practical recognition of the general principle of equal treatment.
A little further down in that paragraph there is a crucial caveat which says
however, until such time as all laws in the Member States which discriminate against women are abolished, there can be no real progress towards equality.
I felt that that was a strong comment considering the steps that had already been taken. There is obviously concern that unless we take account of those cases in which laws discriminate against women there will be difficulties. We should also note that we need to take account of cases in which laws now discriminate in favour of women. This matter was mentioned by the hon. Member for Cannock (Mr. Roberts) in an intervention a little earlier. I shall return to that matter later.
The EEC Committee Report goes on to make several other important points. It says in paragraph 4 of its motion for a resolution:
the principle of equality of treatment must for the time being be introduced and achieved within the various national systems of social security, but at the same time urges the Commission not to lose sight of the basic aim of the long-term harmonization of these schemes".
We are more concerned that there should not be major upheavals in legislation whether to do with social security—that we are trying to sort out gradually—or in occupational pensions, on which we have had a wealth of legislation in the last few years. I therefore hope that the view of the Committee that things be done within national systems, and gradually will be followed by the Government in considering how we should take steps on this directive.
There are many long-term aims set out in the last paragraphs of the motion for a resolution, but we need to take particu-

lar account of the fact that it is recognised that there will need to be, as the Minister said, further directives. To get effective equality of treatment in social security there will be a dependence on the practical and complete implementation of that same principle in salaries, employment, vocational training, promotion and other working conditions, because one cannot come without the other. One cannot have the cart without the horse.
The Opposition are completely in agreement with the principle of gradual steps towards equal treatment, but there is one point where the Opposition and the Government divide. Perhaps the Opposition are looking further ahead than even the Commission. We are anxious eventually to reach a position of equal treatment and so wish to see that principle enshrined that we cannot understand how this can possibly happen with pensions unless we have made a plan to work towards equal pension ages in the State scheme. We know that many occupational schemes have already encompassed that, but unless the Community is prepared to see this as one of the basic steps in the way towards equal treatment, we shall be in great difficulty.
It is interesting to note that when four of the major bodies concerned with these matters came together—the Consultative Committee of the Accountancy Bodies, the Institute of Actuaries, the Bar Council and the Law Society—they read the Community document and the Government's second consultative document on equal status and came to the conclusion that, whether in the context of the Community as a whole or in the context of our own nation, they had serious doubts whether the introduction of legislation which was concerned with less important issues could bring commensurate advantage as long as the central issue of pension age and dependants' benefits had been left aside. They said that first in all our considerations must be pension age and dependants' benefits. The House and the Government must turn their minds quickly to that in the coming months.
We all know that the cost of reducing the male pension age from 65 to 60 at one go is now in excess of £1,600 million, when the increase in pensions is taken into account. Many of us, not only in the House but outside it have considerable doubts whether the reduction from 65


to 60 to bring about equality would be the right way of doing things. Many pensioners are declaring a desire to work longer if possible, and the sheer expansion of the over-65 population in the next 20 years means that we shall have to face a whole new concept of people in retirement and partial retirement. There are some definite pointers away from equalisation at the age of 60 but towards pressures for equalisation at another age.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: The real argument is not for a fixed age at any level—whether higher or lower—but for a flexible retirement scheme that would allow people to retire when they want to retire.

Mrs. Chalker: The hon Gentleman has anticipated the point that I was about to make. There is no doubt that the Bar Council, the Law Society and all those other bodies that deal with the legal difficulties ensuing from the differences that exist firmly believe that this is the first target for parliamentary action. I probably do not need to draw the Minister's attention to the excellent booklet published in September by the National Association of Pension Funds. It says:
We recommend that the Government with the main opposition parties should, as a matter of urgency, enter into discussion with a view to announcing their joint agreement:

(i)That the retirement ages for men and women in the State Scheme will be "equalised at a common age"—Over 20 years.
(ii)That this equalisation will be phased in gradually and will not commence to take effect until at least 5 years after April 1978 (i.e. April 1983 at the earliest), and
(iii)That during the next two years a study will be made and agreement reached as to the eventual long terms common retirement age, the length of the transitional period to that age and benefits during that period."

We should welcome a bipartisan approach and working with the Government to make this become a reality. We think that it is important, for those who will become members of the State scheme, because those who have contracted in should know that this change is possible before April 1978. Otherwise we could be accused of altering the scheme and we could give ourselves more difficulties in the long run.
This debate is about a Community document on equal treatment and that is so fundamental that hon. Members may wonder why I make this point now. The reason is that this is the first chance for many months. We must look at this underlying crucial factor in the steps towards equal treatment. I hope that the Government will respond and will tell us what plans they have for the course outlined in the NAPF leaflet.
The Minister referred to amending various Acts, including the Supplementary Benefit Act 1976 and the Social Security Act 1975, which are the two measures that take account of the directive to treat women equally for the entitlement of benefits. Do both these Acts come within the terms of the directive, which deals with personal benefits being brought into line within two years after the adoption of the directive? What plans do we have, if we cannot get the situation eased, to extend the period to three or four years, which might make it easier for us to overcome the problems that we face here?
Now that we are not to have the pensions legislation that was to have been included in the proposals from the first consultative document, what other legislation, with which the Government agree, might be needed to bring us into line with the directive? Equal status for men and women—the legislation recommended by the OPB and written into the first and second consultative documents—seems necessary, yet we have no vehicle for it. Some of the recommendations were too strong for us when we first read them.
In a note on 2nd February, the Minister of State said that although the broad policy of occupational pension schemes mentioned by the directive was the same as the broad policy to which the Government were already committed, coverage of the directive extended to employers' sick pay schemes and it was necessary to consider whether any new implications were raised in this area against the background of the Equal Pay Act and the Sex Discrimination Act.
I ask this question because although the Minister referred specifically to the sickness scheme, it is possible that he is aware that many employers are already operating schemes that are perfectly


acceptable within the directive. If that is not the case we should know, so that those employers may take steps, if we are to agree with that part of the directive, to put their own schemes in order.
There is a further problem. I wonder whether the Government are aware that some employers' sick pay schemes that have been advanced of late have been of what may be called a permanent health insurance nature. In a period of high inflation in the United States of America it seems that such schemes are being used as a means of early retirement. That has highly dubious economic consequences and in discussing the directive with the Commission it should be pointed out that any move that would force a similar scheme upon employers in this country would not be a good thing. It is something that should be discussed with the Commission.
It seems that there is broad agreement on equal access as there has always been on both sides of the House. If the Government eventually find that they are forced to take legislative action as a result of the directive, we believe that that should not be done in isolation, and not until all the snares and catches that might follow from it have been considered.
The Committee on Social Affairs referred to difficulties with maternity leave and pay and what might happen if there were increasing pressure from countries such as Italy for paternity leave. That would happen only where the wife was sick and unable to care for the new child or other children of the family. I must tell the House that, having consulted a number of outside bodies, it is the feeling of practically all the professional pension organisations that we should not go any further, as the Committee on Social Affairs would wish us to go, and include such matters in the directive. It is felt that they should be excluded for the time being.
The Committee, which sat on 9th November, did not seem to realise how much in the United Kingdom, anyway, the circumstances have already changed by employers being able to use a flexible attitude towards men having to take leave of absence because of the sickness of a wife, and how much our pension trustees are able to do within the Inland Revenue guidelines. There is a worry, however, because there is undoubtedly

pressure from the other States within the Community to widen that aspect still further. For the time being that pressure should be resisted.
As for the sell-employed, how will the United Kingdom handle the indications for equal treatment that are given? We note from the draft order, which we shall be debating on Thursday, that the contributions of the self-employed will be reduced quite soon. Has there been any move within the Department in discussions on pensions for the self-employed? It seems that the long-term aim of the Commission will be to bring about this equality of treatment not merely between men and women but between the self-employed and the employee. That has been mentioned in a number of documents emanating from the Commission and is something that the Minister should examine.
I turn to pension rights on divorce and separation, which are mentioned in paragraphs 21 to 23 of the second consultative document. We know that the Occupational Pensions Board wanted legislation on the matter, but we consider quite strongly that if there has to be a decision on pension rights on divorce or separation, it should be taken in the court at the time of the divorce or separation and the settlement between the two parties. We do not believe that legislation will be necessary, and any pressure from the Commission that there should be legislation should, in our opinion, be resisted at present.
We know that the occupational schemes that may be covered in various ways by the eventual directive from the Commission are fully prepared to move towards equal treatment provided that the Government and the Commission do not ignore the statistical realities of health and age differences between the two sexes. That is an important point which should be borne in mind in all the deliberations.
We are convinced that the many requirements of the directive can be met by voluntary action, particularly on the occupational pensions front, and that a code of practice is all that will be required to bring into line those pension schemes that do not have the good practices of many today. But I believe that we shall be better off if we can grasp the nettle of flexible retirement ages in the long term, because until we do there will


never be real equality of treatment in old age. We shall never be able to move towards widowers' benefits based on a full contributions record of the woman. The other matters do not seem to require legislation.
Above all, one concludes from reading the many documents that there are so many unknowns, even now, that this House can move to be in line with the directive without further legislation until it is absolutely necessary. If I make one plea tonight it is that the Government continue the discussions that they started with the first and second consultative documents after their next session in Brussels. Then when the final directive becomes even clearer we can work our way towards accepting that, with the industry concerned just as much as the Government and without unnecessary legislation, which not only takes time but often puts a stranglehold on the development of measures towards equal treatment.
We have very good practice in the occupational pensions scheme. Our first priority, in order to reach the principle of equal treatment in our own legislation must be further discussion—discussion on the moves towards equal pension ages and flexibility in pensions, which are all important. From them all else will follow.

10.47 p.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: It is a poetic irony that the House should be invited to take note of this document immediately after a decision which will not leave the future of the European Economic Community and this country's membership of it unaltered. I say that because the document brings before us in strong form the exorbitant demands and the expansive claims of the European Economic Community.
We have just ended a debate in the course of which we were told from the Dispatch Box that in the Government's view the European Economic Community consisted of independent and sovereign nations co-operating together for a common good. It is almost beyond the power of imagination to conceive how that definition can be squared with directives imposing harmonisation in the most fundamental and sensitive aspects of the social services and social security of the respective countries.
As one listened to the admirable speech of the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) and realised how these questions looked backwards and forwards in our own legislation, and how closely they were bound up with the fabric of our habits and outlook in this country, one could not but realise how inappropriate it was, and how increasingly old-fashioned in the chronology of the EEC, that we should be invited to debate these aspects in terms of the impertinence of a body which imposes phases in terms of two years or three years, at the end of which we are to comply with certain requirements laid down by the Commission in Brussels.
I agree with the hon. Lady that we want, if we can avoid them, no further major upheavals at present in our structure of social security, and that we should be in a position to choose ourselves—and this was implicit in the Minister's speech—the priority that we give in this country to advances on one front or another, and that we should not find ourselves obliged to devote resources which we think would be best allocated, for example, to moving towards a flexible form of retirement age, to other objectives which fall in with the artificial requirement of harmonisation.
There is nothing in the logic of the EEC which requires the harmonisation of the matters with which this directive is concerned. Neither the theoretical free trade, which is the economic aspect, nor the freedom of movement of labour requires that all the nations party to the EEC should move together to common deadlines on all the matters which are involved in this directive.
At one stage, the hon. Member for Wallasey assessed what in her view should be the next "targets for parliamentary action". I noted her words, for they were significant. For of all the possible subjects of concern to those whom we represent, these are the subjects which should most be domestically and exclusively the concern of this Parliament.
I have intervened only briefly in the debate, but I think that it is right that the relationship of this debate with the bigger debate that is going on should be pointed out this evening.

10.51 p.m.

Mrs. Audrey Wise: I share the view that it is an


impertinence for the EEC to attempt to impose legislation on us in this or any other field. My remarks about how I feel we should develop are very much about how "we" should develop, and they would be couched in similar vein whether they were in line with the views that the Commission happens to hold or contrary to the Commission's views. I have no great faith in that body, in any case, in arriving at the decision that would most meet the needs and wishes of either sex in this country, so I encourage the Government to have a very bracing attitude in their general response to the EEC on this and any other matter.
I am concerned about what is regarded as the achievement of equal treatment. This can happen in a number of directions. One can look at a particular situation and equalise in the direction which is the cheapest. One can very easily equalise on pensions—it is easy to talk about, although it would not be easy to achieve—simply by saying that women will retire at the age of 65 as do men. That is equal treatment and is presumably in line with this draft directive. If that were the case, I for one would have none of it, and I am sure that any Government would meet immense resistance.
I am in favour of equalising in the direction of improving the situation for both sexes. I believe that the proper attitude is to take the best practice and then try to apply that to both sexes. In the case of pensions, I regard the best practice as being to fix a retirement age which is quite low, as has been done for women, but to regard that as being an opportunity for retirement and not a requirement to retire.
There is all the difference in the world between having the chance to retire at the age of 60, if one's health, working conditions, history or family circumstances make that seem the best for the individual; and having either an employer or the Government say that one must retire at 60.
I should like to see both sexes have the opportunity to retire at 60. I viewed with some alarm the remarks of the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) be-because I was not at all certain that her flexibility would be based on the age of 60 for both sexes. I want flexibility on that basis. Although there could well be an increasing tendency for people to

want to retire at a later age than 60, I want them to have the opporunity to do so at the lower age.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: Does not my hon. Friend also agree that this flexibility ought to relate to the type of work in which a person is employed? In heavy industry for example, retirement ages should be brought down considerably more than in the lighter industries and an opportunity should be given for people to move from that sort of industry into a lighter industry if they want to continue working.

Mrs. Wise: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend that flexibility should be very thorough and not simply on paper. It needs to imply the right to change to different sorts of occupation.
I would be very much in favour of that kind of change. I am sure that women in general in this country want men to have the opportunity to retire at earlier ages.
Many wives of industrial workers are distressed by the fact that their husbands have to continue doing work that is unsuitably heavy for them. In fact, I had a letter only the other day from a constituent who talked about her husband as "having to drag himself to work", and having to do so for a few years, because he could not retire until the age of 65. This is an important matter which should not simply be looked at on the basis of paper equality but rather on the basis of a real improvement for men.
From time to time I have tabled Questions about dependency benefits. Although I accept the point about the reluctance of the Government to double their liability in this area, I do not accept their point about refusing to allow a couple the choice of who should be regarded as the breadwinner. If for any reason—whether of choice, availability of work or anything else—the wife is the breadwinner, then she should be entitled to claim dependency benefit. But she is not so entitled. It has been made clear to me through Parliamentary Answers that this would cost very little, but the Government are afraid that they would be opening the door.
We can discuss the question of refusing the extension of benefits on the grounds of high cost, but I do not think we can


discuss the question of improving benefits in one circumstance because of any supposed effect on another circumstance. The Government should be able to justify their policy on the merits of a particular case. I do not think that there is any merit in the Government deciding which member of the family should be regarded as the prime breadwinner. That should be the prerogative of the couple concerned.
In the case of Family Income Supplement we have a particularly bad example of bad practice because, as has been bitterly pointed out by the National League of Blind and Disabled, if a man is blind or disabled and his wife is the breadwinner and if she qualifies for FIS on the basis of her income—which is the family income—she is nevertheless denied it because the regulations lay down that for FIS purposes the husband only can qualify. The husband must be a full-time worker. That is monstrous. It is particularly monstrous in the case of families where the husband is blind or disabled, but it is also extremely bad even if it is by choice of the couple. As long as one of the couple is a full-time worker it should not matter which one it is for the purpose of qualifying for family income supplement. It should be determined on income level alone. This is a change which could be made rapidly, within the present Session, and which I am sure would have the support of the whole House. I do not believe that it would cost much. It ought to be done, in equity.
The question of discrimination is very complex because there is, for instance, discrimination against widowers, a matter which will be of increasing concern. A widow's necessity for a pension derives from the historical fact that women were not only economically dependent upon their husbands but were at a great disadvantage in the labour market. As those factors become less important the discrimination between widows and widowers becomes less defensible. I want there to be the acknowledgment that a widower will in most cases be badly disturbed and financially affected by the death of his wife and should have some period of help in the same way as a widow receives an allowance. There

should be an improvement in the position of men in this respect.
The same is true of paternity benefits. If I understood the hon. Member for Wallasey correctly, she was wary of any extension of rights to paternity leave. On the contrary, I welcome the fact that young husbands now feel very much involved in the family situation when their wives are having babies. They are involved in caring for the child and want to be with child and wife in time of sickness. This is to be encouraged. The Government should look with favour on moves to improve the position of men in that respect. I am less concerned about the statistical realities to which the hon. Lady referred. I am concerned about the family realities, which are moving in the direction of both partners in a marriage taking responsibility for bread-winning to some extent, and for caring for the family. This should not be impeded by our social security legislation. At the moment, I am afraid, to a large extent the Government choose how the family should be organised. We must move in the direction which allows the family to organise itself as it wishes. I hope that the Government will have this yardstick in mind.

11.3 p.m.

Mr. Robin Hodgson: My hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) has remarked that it is difficult to disagree with a directive which aims to eliminate differences in social security treatment between men and women. When the directive goes on to ask for equality of coverage, eligibility and rate, we have to applaud the principle behind it. However, there are four points I wish to bring to the Minister's attention.
My first point concerns the effect of tax and tax treatment on benefits and the consequential effect on the equality of treatment principle. Many anomalies have been thrown up as a result of the different taxation treatment of short-as opposed to long-term social security benefits. As an example, of all the points made by my constituents in the short time that I have been a Member of this House, the treatment of widows' pensions has caused more aggravation and heart-searching than anything else. If we are now to have equality of benefits for men


and women whose tax position may be dissimilar, we shall create a great deal of aggravation. Primarily, beneficiaries must be concerned with the bottom line, what they receive in their hands—that is, after deductions—and not the top line or the gross amount before deductions.
The second point I wish to make concerns the inequalities in treatment—the need for equality of eligibility and of coverage. To a large extent, this matter does not seem to be tackled by the directive. Many of our social security benefits are payable not according to need but according to the pure chance by which the accident or the hardship occurred. The hon. Member for Coventry, South-West (Mrs. Wise) referred to the particular problem of the blind. I should like to expand a little on what she said. Last summer I raised the question of inequality in the treatment and payment of blind benefits. I pointed out that, as a result of irrelevant incidents—whether, for example, people were blinded at work or in the home—the financial treatment of such persons was quite different. It could be as little as £5 or £6 or as much as £40 or £50 a week. The tax treatment was also different. It seemed to me then that it was morally indefensible that such a differential should be maintained.
Therefore, when we talk about equality of treatment for both men and women, must we not also consider the question of equality of coverage and of eligibility? Will the Minister confirm that if we implement the directive the gaps to which I have referred and to which the hon. Member for Coventry, South-West referred will be closed?
The third point concerns retirement age. I should like to associate myself with remarks already made about the need for flexibility to meet individual requirements rather than to lay down a strict and rigid law.
The Central Policy Review Staff Report on the future population of this country, which was published in the summer, showed that there will be a large increase in over-65 dependants towards the end of the century. Therefore, it behoves us, as we approach a time when we may have to support an increasingly large population over 65, to find some way of making sure that as many people as possible over that age remain active and economically able

to support themselves and make their full contribution to the community as a whole. I should be unhappy if, as some have suggested, we were to go down a road which laid down fixed and firm requirements for retirement for men or women.
The fourth point concerns the family unit. The directive refers to the major implications for benefits for families. I am concerned that nothing should be done to amend the social security system in such a way as to make any break-up of the family unit any more likely than it is today. It is not clear from the directive whether implementation is likely to make a woman better off away from her husband or remaining in the family unit with him. It am not so cynical as to suggest that a failing marriage can be glued together by the withdrawal of benefits. On the other hand, since the family unit remains the basic building block of our society, it is important that any amendment of the social security system should in no way affect the financial viability of marriages. I should welcome the Minister's comments on that point.
The principle underlying this directive seems laudable and praiseworthy. The need for equality of treatment between the sexes is undeniable, and it will come to pass whether we like it or not. I hope that in considering this matter we shall bear in mind some of the wider implications and the need to root out, simplify and amend the social security system as it exists.

11.9 p.m.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: I shall not follow some of the paths taken by one or two of the earlier speakers in commenting on the general EEC question. I think that when one looks at a document such as this one cannot look too closely at gift horses.
It seems to me that this document should be generally welcomed. I am not sure, however, that adequate priority has been given to the question of pensionable ages. Although I appreciate what my hon. Friend said about the European Assembly, and also the more sympathetic tone that I detected from his hon. Friend in reply to a Question of mine earlier today, I still feel that the priority given to this matter is inadequate.
That is particularly so at this time, because one feels that enabling people to


retire somewhat earlier than they do now would make a considerable contribution to reducing the dole queues. It seems a matter of simple arithmetic that if we can pay an additional man a pension and save by offering a job at the other end of the chain to somebody from the dole queue, the cost of that move might be minimal.
Although I accept what the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) said on the wider question of pensionable age—I accept that there has to be some gradualism—I do not accept her figure of £1,600 million—plus. In fact, as she probably knows, we have had several figures from the Government Front Bench, and I am not sure of the actuarial basis of any of them of the allowances that were made in calculating them. I do not accept the figures, because we are in a period when unemployment is to a considerable extent a product of technological change.
Many hon. Members have said that the solution might lie in operating on the working life and the working week. The Government can have very little effect in the short term on the working week, because that is generally a matter for trade union negotiation, but they can have a direct effect on the working life by enabling people who want to do so—I emphasise "people who want to do so"—to retire earlier.
Reference has been made to particular occupations. There are certain manual and non-manual occupations where people feel that they have given their worth to society by the time they reach the age of 60. I believe that there is a case for enabling people who want to retire at that age to do so and for allowing those who want to go on working to do so.

Mr. Loyden: Does my hon. Friend agree that certain industries endanger the health of workers? An example of that is the rubber industry, where work can result in people suffering from carcinoma. In such an industry the industrial life ought to be short-lived. That would meet the point that not only in that industry but in many others employment opportunities could be extended if the health of the workers was protected by a shorter working life.

Mr. Roberts: My hon. Friend has summarised the situation excellently. That is the situation in that industry and in many others. Before the present scheme came into operation in the coal mining industry, when collieries were closed many of those who were given the opportunity to retire did so. There is an argument for a flexible pattern of retirement.

Mr. Ivor Clemitson: Does my hon. Friend agree that many people are taking earlier retirement by using the Redundancy Payments Fund? About one-third of the total payments are to men between the ages of 60 and 64. If there is a scheme for voluntary redundancy, many men aged between 60 and 64 will take the redundancy payment, sign on for a year and receive unemployment benefit and thus, in effect, take early retirement.

Mr. Roberts: I accept what my hon. Friend says. This is a complex question, because one has to provide adequate pensions at the lower end of the age band. On the other hand, there are certain incentives for continuing at work. I welcome the reference that has been made to the need for a planned programme towards a flexible system of retirement. We need a non-partisan approach. I accept what the hon. Member for Wallasey said about the need to move towards equal treatment for the sexes and for the employed and self-employed. Many of us feel that the self-employed have had a harsh deal.
People should know where we are going. We should have a common target which remains firm irrespective of which party is in office. There is a real need to move towards a nonpartisan approach that will remove some of the anomalies in terms of the sexes and of the employed and the self-employed.
I welcome the document. I hope that it is the forerunner of other documents which will move some of the way towards the direction in which both sides of the House wish to go.

11.16 p.m.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: This document, like a number of others, slightly strains the original Treaty of Rome by moving from certain parts of social security policies to family policy.


This might be a welcome development, but it should not be construed as following legitimately from the original Treaty.
Page 2, paragraph 7, of the directive says:
women and family benefits lie more within the domain of family policy
That is odd, because paragraph 5 refers to
the absence of all discrimination based on sex, either directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to marital or family status"—
which covers the whole of humanity.
If hon. Members feel that they are part of the wider Community, it is important that the Treaty of Rome, the development of Community policy and levelling up should apply not only to people at work but to people who will be and were at work, and that benefits which are part of family policy should be considered at the time as other parts of the social security system.
We seem to pay a lot of attention to fairly small details in terms of money for the social wage or social security, but very few debates take place on other parts of the social wage and other aspects of health. Hospital provision is an example. If the Secretary of State were to announce the closure of both the hospitals in my constituency, against the wishes of my constituents, thousands have signed a petition, he would experience one of the biggest Christmas fights that he has had, especially if the timing of his announcement meant that it would not be reported or seen in the Press until Christmas Eve.

11.19 p.m.

Mr. George Cunningham: Since I have campaigned against hospital closures myself, I am sympathetic to the point made by the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley).
There are two issues involved in the document. The first is the question of how far and in what direction we should move towards non-discrimination. Secondly, there is the question of the rôle of the EEC with regard to British legislation. I hope that the Minister is as interested in receiving views on the second point as he is on the first and that he will regard it as a co-equal part of the debate.
So much has been said with which I agree on the first point and so much on the second that I can be brief. The EEC is obsessed with harmonisation. Many people have tried to push the EEC off this mad endeavour, but we have not pushed it very far. It seems to be intent upon harmonising everything except the thing that will always be out of its reach, namely, geography. It will never be able to abolish the disadvantage—sometimes it is an advantage, but in economic terms it is a disadvantage—that there is a minimum of 20 miles of water between this country and the Continent, and that with all its harmonisations the Community will not be able to make of this country anything but an offshore island of what is increasingly a Continental economic system. What we are left with is not equal competition by a long way, and that view ought to get through into the heads of the European bureaucrats.
I do not think that the European Commission should have anything to do with this matter. It should be told to get its nose out of it and to get on with the other work which is more directly concerned with the proper functions of the EEC. I totally disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Mr. Roberts), who said that he would welcome this kind of move, from whatever source it came. If we take that approach, we will be building up the power of the Community, because that is exactly the game it is playing. It will put forward proposals for this purpose. We should resist it when it comes from the Community, even if we agree with every jot and tittle of the content of the document.
I come now to the substance of the matter. As has been said, social legislation of this kind goes very deeply into long-ingrained habits and, in this field, into the Fabian doctrine—I apologise to my hon. Friends for distancing myself from all those I see present—of the inevitability of gradualness, which applies to nothing more than it does to social legislation.
We cannot possibly move to eradicate the traditional attitudes that the husband is the person who really looks after the wife and not the other way round, and that the husband has the primary responsibility of looking after the children, unless we do it on a gradual basis. We should be insistent on making constant


changes, but peoples' attitudes do not change very swiftly and I do not think that we can set ourselves any legislative timetable which can be expressed in terms of two, four or six years. That fact should be got through in Brussels.
I strongly agreed with the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) when she stressed that of all the items upon which harmonisation is required, by far the most important is the business of pensionable age. I regard early action on this as important, not because one can get early completion of harmonisation on this matter but simply because one cannot possibly get early completion of harmonisation on it. One can do it only over a prolonged period, something like 30 years. Therefore, it is one of those subjects upon which we must get started quickly, because it will take 30 years to get finished.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: There is a great danger when figures of this sort are quoted without any actuarial basis. My hon. Friend produced the figure of 30 years, but it could be 10 years. It is dangerous to set such long-term targets of this sort, because Governments should be optimistic rather than pessimistic.

Mr. Cunningham: My experience is that the main thing is to get started. If one gets started, the time scale may shorten and one might achieve more if one plans on the basis of a long progression rather than on the basis of people accepting a short-term progression. If we are to move towards the same retirement age for men and women, or the same flexibility of retirement arrangements for men and women, I would prefer that we built into it, gradually over two or three years, a sex equalisation factor by which men and women come into line with each other. There is no great difficulty as long as we accept that we have a long job ahead. This is the most important thing.
I imagine that equality of treatment for pensions was excluded from the document because it is not something that can be achieved rapidly. Because of this, it is most important that we get started on it. I hope that the Ministry will take that line in the negotiations with other European countries and stress that this is something that we think should remain

the responsibility primarily of the national legislatures. In fact, the Ministry should make it clear that as far as we are concerned it will remain the primary responsibility of national legislatures, and if Brussels does not like it—hard luck; we shall block it in the Council of Ministers. That is the way in which the French have proceeded since the beginning of the EEC, and it is the way in which they have established their dominance in the Community. It is an attitude that we must adopt. I do not feel at all sensitive that it would be condemned by some as a Gaullist approach.

11.22 p.m.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: I want to deal very briefly with the question of the danger of disturbing in any fundamental way the position of pensions and social security in this country. One of the things that riles industrial workers is the number of occasions on which pension schemes set out by the Government have been changed during their working lives. There is no security or long-term stability for the mass of insured persons.
There was the Crossman scheme, and now there is the present Government's scheme, and many people find that they are paying increased contributions for which they have not received any benefits. We do not need any further convulsions in pensions or social security. We need stability and fast movement towards a proper scheme.
The need for flexibility in pensions has been mentioned. This is a matter of great importance to the document and the debate. Our main responsibility is not to be geared to any European concept of pensions and social security but to react to the needs of our people.
One of those needs is to correct the almost inhuman attitude adopted to people working in industries. Many injuries to health have been suffered by these people, but because there is no flexible pension scheme they must continue working and virtually kill themselves. Many of the diseases are not recognised as occupational diseases as the direct result of people working in bad conditions. Flexibility in that sense could shorten considerably the working lives of people in


these industries and offer employment opportunities to others.
Government efforts to help industrial workers should be looked at seriously. The point has been made that there are other fields that we can usefully investigate for the use of resources if we have the resources now. We are still awaiting the implementation of the Finer Report. Considerable hardship is suffered by one-parent families, and if resources are available they should be applied with sufficient flexibility to meet the needs of these people. Any spare resources from the Government should meet the needs of the community rather than the regulations of Brussels.
I disagreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Mr. Roberts) when he said that he looked on the directive as a gift horse but felt that we should not examine its mouth too carefully. He should remember the precept about being wary of Greeks who bear gifts.
My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West (Mrs. Wise) mentioned the human problems involved in these matters and brought an air of reality into the debate. I hope that the Minister will take careful account of her words as well as of the contributions made by other Labour Members.

11.31 p.m.

Mr. Tony Newton: I wish to intervene briefly, and in part to comment on what seemed to me to be the ungenerous approach of some hon. Members to the Community's activities, and, indeed, to the existence of this draft directive at all. I feel that they should be more gracious in acknowledging the simple fact that the Community's activities have provided us with an opportunity of debating matters which many EEC members clearly feel is of great importance and which have been under-discussed.
The purpose of our joining the Community, and, indeed, of the setting up the Community in the first place, was substantially to enable countries to work together to achieve the highest common set of standards in terms of the economic and social well-being of the peoples of the Community. I wholeheartedly welcome that purpose, and that is one reason why I personally was happy for this country to join the Community.
I think that all the nations of the Community must set an example in various areas of activity. We are not ahead of many other countries in social security matters. We have much to learn in harmonisation in respect of many of the worst-off in our society. I welcome the Community's activities in seeking to move towards harmonisation and I also welcome this stimulating debate.
Therefore, I believe it is somewhat nitpicking to argue whether the Community's scales are two, three or four years behind. One might discuss whether everything in a draft directive makes practical sense for everybody in the Community at any one point in time, in much the same way as one might argue about the details of a United Kingdom Government Bill which one supports in principle. But to elevate these details into an attack on the Community's whole purpose in bringing forward draft directives of this kind and with their undoubted benefits for people in all the Community countries seems to be failing to see the wood for the trees.
I do not wish to take up too much time because I want to give the Minister ample time to reply to the debate, but I wish to make a few quick points to the hon. Gentleman. There was one reference in the commentary and in the Select Committee's comments to the question of the invalid care allowance. I hope that the Minister will say a word or two about the effects of the draft directive on disablement benefits. These benefits are an enormous tangle, and they include a number of benefits that apply only to women. Perhaps the Minister will be able to give some information on the effects of disablement benefit, and particularly about the housewife's non-contributory allowance.
Has the Equal Opportunities Commission been asked to comment on this directive, or has it been consulted about it? It is a matter on which that body might have been expected to be consulted. In deed, it might have commented on it voluntarily. Perhaps we may be told.
What worries me about the Minister's approach and that contained in other speeches in this debate is the defensive flavour therein. We all agree that a flexible approach towards such schemes is devoutly to be wished. There has been a


good deal of academic work, particularly by Professor Michael Fogarty and other people who are actively concerned in the pensions industry, particularly Noble Lowndes.
I have a great deal of sympathy with the comment made by Mr. Eric Short writing in "Benefits International" in March 1977, when he said:
The impression conveyed is that the Department"—
that is, the Under Secretary's Depart-ment—
has enough problems maintaining the existing situation and it is not going to make a rod for its own back by proposing further changes. The computer at Newcastle is programmed for men to retire at 65 and women at 60, and the DHSS is not going to undertake the task of changing it.
That is the feeling one has, that there is an endless stream of reasons why nothing can be done and how difficult it all is, and there are no signs whatever of a constructive effort being made to get to grips with the problems, even if it will take some time to resolve them. I hope that one thing that will emerge from the debate is a more positive approach from the Department to what we all regard as a crucial issue.
If I may leave one suggestion with the House, it is that it may be right now to ask the Government to produce, if only as a discussion document, a systematic attempt to assess where all the differences now are between men and women in our social security system and at the very least to map out an approach to how they propose to tackle these over a period of time. At the moment, we get a series of piecemeal points. The hon. Lady the Member for Coventry, South-West (Mrs. Wise) has made some very good ones. A number of others have been made in the House. However, to my knowledge, so far no genuine systematic study has been made of the extent to which this problem still exists and there has been no positive attempt to bring something forward for the future.
If the Community's activity generates something more positive along those lines, this draft directive and this debate will have been well worth while.

11.37 p.m.

Mr. Deakins: I do not have much time, so I am sure that the House will

forgive me if I run out of time while attempting to deal with all the points which have been made in the debate.
First, may I say to all those who have taken part and to those who have attended without taking part that I can assure the House that we shall take careful note of all the points that have been made in the debate? Some of them overlap each other. I take on board first, the points made by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) about the scope of the directive. We are, so to speak, committed to the directive by the social action programme of 1974. We are committed, that is to say, to a sort of directive, not necessarily in this form, but a directive of some sort, and there may be further directives.
What we are concerned with in our discussions at Brussels is to ensure that when the directive finally emerges—no one can say when that will be; it has been on the stocks now for the best part of two years—it will be in a form that will be acceptable to the Government and the people of this country and in a form that will not require too much impact on legislation. I shall say more about that later.
The debate itself has been very much more about what we should be doing in this country on equality in social security than about what the directive actually says. That, in a sense, is a good thing. After all, the directive is by no means perfect. We have some broad reservations about some of the points in it. It does not cover many points of interest to hon. Members in all parts of the House.
The fact is that there are major differences between the social security system in this country and in Ireland and that in the rest of the Community, particularly with regard to dependency benefits. The other countries broadly do not have dependency benefits as we know them, but they have much higher levels of family benefits. That is a major difference.
One of the problems that the directive is causing us is in respect of dependency benefits. It is a fact that we are moving in any event towards greater equality in social security and in pension provision


in the United Kingdom, so the directive is merely concentrating our minds a little more wonderfully, because if the directive goes through it will have an impact on the legislation we shall have to bring forward.
I also take the point that there should be no major upheavals in social security legislation. In the past four to five years we have had much social security legislation under both Governments. The broad structure of our system is now complete. The details have not all been filled in, but the pension scheme, the child benefit scheme and measures for the disabled and so on are now complete in outline. Many new benefits have been introduced and we really do not require further major alterations in the structure of our benefits, although I must enter a caveat because we are conducting an internal review of the supplementary benefit scheme with a view to simplifying it, which may eventually lead to legislation, which, I hope, all would accept.

Mrs. Chalker: I am sure that, apart from that sort of simplification, we should be going towards legislation to prevent overlap and inequality—things that bring benefits home to the people rather than great new structures built one on the other.

Mr. Deakins: I entirely agree.
I now turn to the major theme of the debate in terms of the detail of the directive. Unfortunately, what is not in the directive is the idea that we should move towards greater equality of pension ages and flexible retirement ages. I remind the House of this because not all hon. Members may have read the opinion of the European Assembly on this:
the determination of pensionable age should be the same for men and women and apart from this, in recognition of the family duties generally incumbent upon them, there should be the possibility of earlier retirement for women at their own request.
I find it a little difficult to follow that even within the European Assembly people are thinking about equal pension ages and at the same time qualifying that by the idea of flexibility. I should have thought that flexibility should apply to men and women and not merely to women.
We have had a number of debates on these issues in Committee and, no doubt,

there will be more. I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury that the important thing—he is a doughty fighter for this cause—is to get started on the process. Chairman Mao said that on a journey of a thousand miles the first step was the biggest. That is the one that we have not yet taken, but it is an important step and we want to be certain of the direction in which we are headed.
We have not yet had sufficient public debate in the House or publicity on the the equality of retirement age and flexibility—and flexibility is much more complicated because it raises the matter of benefits. What should the person who has chosen to retire early get in comparison with those who have retired later? I pose the questions but I do not know the answers. No doubt we shall debate them a great deal.
On dependency benefits—with which my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West (Mrs. Wise) was concerned—it is true that the number of married women going out to work is increasing, but in most cases the husband is the major breadwinner and it is exceptional for married women to have an uninterrupted employment record. I have the figures, and I shall write to my hon. Friend giving them.
We are basically concerned with the cost where there are two breadwinners in a family with children because paying dependency benefits to both—which is what we understand the directive means—would lead to the costs that I have mentioned. We are sympathetic to the case in which the husband is not the breadwinner or is incapacitated, and in those circumstances the women should be able to claim.
The point has also been made about the case in which the breadwinners decide that one shall have the responsibility for earning the family income. The number of such cases known to us is relatively insignificant in numerical terms now, but there are cases in which husbands have taken time out of employment for study or activity, such as writing, with deferred financial reward, and have relied on their wives' earning. We are sympathetic about the problem. It is not easy and we shall, not resolve it easily because it will be-open to much abuse, because a couple


could decide to change places as breadwinners at appropriate times in their lives to get the most income from the State. Some might say that that would be a good thing, but from the point of view of social security expenditure we should look carefully before embarking on that particular path.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will the hon. Gentleman write to hon. Members explaining why he says that? Surely, if a couple have income and dependants, it does not matter who looks after them?

Mr. Deakins: We are talking about two earners, and we must have equality between that family and the family with only one earner. In correspondence, the Commission has given as its view that the draft directive does not include housewives, and, therefore, it will not affect the invalid care allowance or the noncontributory invalidity pension. As to equal treatment under the occupational pensions legislation, we have said that we shall introduce a Bill as soon as practicable. We have a long-standing commitment to secure a fair deal for women and to remove discrimination in occupational pension schemes. There is little difference between what we want to see in this area and what the draft directive suggests, though we shall want some changes made in the provisions and we shall be pursuing those in Brussels in the coming months.
I take the point that there is reverse discrimination against men. The 1975 Pensions Act makes provision for a divorced man with a less than full record of contributions to make use of his ex-wife's contributions in calculating basic pension, and it allows a retired or chronically sick widower to receive some benefit from his late wife's record. However, we have not gone all the way towards true equality, and the directive does not require us to do so. The point of my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Mr. Roberts) should be taken into account, though not necesarily in the context of carrying out the provisions of the directive.
An hon. Member asked about the Equal Opportunities Commission. It has given written evidence to the Scrutiny Committee.
I now have less than a minute left. I shall read carefully all the points that have been made in the debate. Certainly, we shall try for some major modifications—

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business).

Question agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of Commission Document No. R/48/77 on Equal Treatment in Social Security.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (LIBRARY)

Motion made,
That this House doth agree with the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services), in their Fifth Report, in the last Session of Parliament, on Computer-based Indexing for the Library.—[Mr. James Hamilton.]

Hon. Members: Object.

PETITION

Chorley Hospital

11.47 p.m.

Mr. George Rodgers: With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to present a petition signed by 2,014 of my constituents and organised by the Chorley Hospital Crusade. A similar petition, signed by about 15,000 constituents, will be presented to the appropriate Minister at the Department of Health and Social Security.
The petition reads:
To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the Chorley Hospital Crusade Sheweth that the proposals of the Lancashire Area Health Authority would bring about the closure of the Chorley Hospital Children's Ward, thereby creating distress and danger to young people requiring treatment and care because of the long journey necessary to reach the nearest available hospital with this facility. Wherefore your humble petitioners pray that your honourable House call upon the Secretary of State for the Social Services to promote such policies as will

(a)Guarantee the continued provision of a Children's Ward at the Chorley Hospital.
(b)Restore the service at the Chorley Hospital Casualty Unit on a 24-hour basis.


(c) Advance the standing of the Chorley Hospital to 'full district status' in the shortest possible time.
Which policies should be implemented with all urgency—and your petitioners, as in duty bound will ever pray etc.

To lie upon the Table.

MOBILE CANTEENS (TRUNK ROADS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. James Hamilton.]

11.50 p.m.

Sir Timothy Kitson: I am pleased to have the opportunity of raising on the Adjournment the problems of the stationing of mobile canteens on trunk roads. Two weeks ago I asked the Secretary of State for Transport on how many occasions under Section 124 of the Highways Act, 1959 his Department had ordered the removal of roadside canteens which had established themselves without planning permission on trunk roads, and whether he was satisfied with the present arrangements for allowing the setting up of canteens and snack bars on trunk roads and laybys. In his reply, the right hon. Gentleman said that there had been no such occasion in recent years. He followed that by saying that roadside canteens provided a service for road users and that he did not seek their removal unless they caused danger. Compliance with planning legislation is a matter for the local authorities.
I do not think anyone would dispute that mobile canteens provide a service for road users, but the problem that we are experiencing in the Hambledon District Council's area is not, I regret to say, helped by the Minister's reply. As I shall explain, the planning legislation, while it is a matter for the local planning authority, cannot control mobile canteens without the assistance of the regional controller, who is responsible to the Secretary of State.
The problem seems to have arisen following the passing of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, which granted greater general control on roadside sales specifically excluding mobile canteens from such control, and this exclusion has been wrongly interpreted in some quarters as superseding the powers under Sections 124 or 127 of the Highways Act 1959. Indeed, both the

North Yorkshire police and the District Councils Association would appear to be in some confusion in regard to this matter. I should add, while I am dealing with the mobile canteens in the Hambledon District area, that this week, since I raised the matter in the House, the District Councils Association has been in touch with me saying that this problem is arising in other parts of the country.
The enforcement of Section 124 of the Highways Act 1959 is the responsibility of the Department of the Environment, and the Department is refusing to take action as it feels that the canteens provide a valuable service for lorry drivers. I think that it would be understandable if the operators who initiated the dispute were on sections of the trunk roads inadequately provided with permanent facilities. That, however, is certainly not the case with the three canteens in the Hambledon district area. Indeed, there are close to all of these operators adequate facilities provided for road users. Recently two applications for service centres within the areas of the mobile canteens were refused planning consent on the direction of the regional controller, and subsequent appeals were dismissed by the Secretary of State because he felt that adequate services were already provided.
I think it can therefore be said that dual standards are being applied by the Department of the Environment, and, indeed, that leaves canteen operators in an invidious position. Their continued existence rests on the decision of the regional controller, which can hardly be conducive to the high standards of hygiene or service required by district councils under the eyes of the environmental health officer, who carefully administers standards that are required under the food hygiene regulations but who appears to be unable to control the required standards of mobile canteens.
Planning legislation is not capable of dealing with the problem, and even if the local authorities were to take enforcement action the canteens would have only to move a few yards up or down a layby to render the whole process completely abortive. Indeed, because of the lengthy procedure of planning applications and appeals, if the proprietor of a mobile canteen were to lose his appeal, which would certainly take six to eight weeks, by his moving a few yards up or


down the layby the whole process would have to be repeated, or, indeed, in our area he could simply exchange with a mobile canteen operator in another lay-by and the whole process would have to be started again. Nor is it possible effectively to rate these establishments, because the district council would not wish to give any suggestion of authorisation to facilities which it opposes.
Mobile canteens are covered by the Food Hygiene (Market Stalls and Delivery Vehicles) Regulations, but those regulations are not as stringent as those which apply to permanent facilities. I have been in touch with the chief environmental health officer, from whom I have learnt that it is not possible to insist upon the standards which cover permanent service areas. Whilst it is possible to prevent health hazards relating to food poisoning, the regulations are not designed to prevent pollution. There are not requirements in the regulations to provide toilets for food handlers or customers. Therefore, the conditions of lay-bys served by mobile canteens are deteriorating into a most unsatisfactory and disgusting state.
In North Yorkshire we have two national parks. One mobile canteen has been stationed where it can clearly be seen from one of the most popular walks in one national park, the Lyke Wake Walk. A few years ago there was an application for a small caravan park, but the operator was told by the Department of the Environment that it was unacceptable. He promised to provide adequate screening, but it was felt that the caravans could be seen from the national park. Yet a mobile canteen has now been set up only a short distance from the proposed caravan park, with no screening. It must be contravening the decision of the Department of the Enviroment of anly a short time ago. One of the Minister's predecessors came up to look at the situation from the Lyke Wake Walk only five years ago to see whether it was acceptable.
Not only have we the problem of effectively controlling the hygiene standards of the mobile canteens, but in one case on the Al, close to the village of Burnestone, the North Riding police have expressed extreme concern about the siting of one of these vehicles. The traffic man-

agement inspector of the North Riding Constabulary wrote to the planning officer on 12th September stating:
The location at Burneston on the Al has no deceleration lane and entry is direct from the main carriageway. This is not satisfactory from a road safety point of view as drivers have to decelerate in the carriageway.
There is no record of an accident at the site as yet, but it is probably only a matter of time before one occurs.
The regional controller, on the direction of the Department of Transport, would never entertain such a development to a fixed service area, and I cannot see why he is prepared to allow these double standards to operate.
The situation as I see it is further complicated by the advice given to the local authorities by their legal advisers. Regulation 5(2) of the 1966 regulations provides that where any stall—which, of course, includes a mobile canteen—is used for the sale of food any person who permits the use of the stall shall take account of the nature and packing of the food which is to be handled, and shall not permit the stall to be used for any of those purposes if it is in such a condition as to expose the food to the risk of contamination or to prevent observance of clean practices in the handling of the food. The regulation also requires the person who permits the use of the stall to ensure that the stall is kept clean and in proper repair.
As the Secretary of State has not used his powers under the Highways Act to move the canteens, he is the person, on behalf of the Crown, who has permitted the use of the mobile canteen. The general rule is that the Crown is not bound by the provisions of a statute unless it is expressly or by necessary implication named therein. Section 122 of the Food and Drugs Act 1955, the Act under which the 1966 regulations were made, provides for the application of the Act and the regulations made under it to the Crown by means of an Order in Council. However, it would appear that an Order in Council has never been made. Regulation 5, here-fore, does not apply in the present case.
I agree that any notice under Section 20 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous) Act 1976 would have to specify the place. It would be reasonable to define the whole of a particular layby as


"a place", as the definition of his term refers to
the sale of food or drink to members of the public for consumption at the place.
Presumably, most people who have bought food at a mobile canteen return to their vehicles to consume it. However, as the environmental health officer says, if a mobile canteen is moved to another layby a fresh notice would have to be served.
There is no doubt that there are overlapping powers between the planning authority and the highway authority. It can be said that laybys are in fact Crown land, which means that there is a Crown interest where the land concerned has been purchased at some time by the Crown. Therefore, the district council has to ask the Secretary of State for his consent before taking enforcement action and, therefore, if the Secretary of State maintains his existing policy in relation to these canteens, it is clearly unlikely that his consent will be forthcoming.
I really believe that the Under-Secretary will have to have another look at the whole situation. Unless a way can be found to control and administer mobile canteens from the point of view of hygiene and road safety, clearly the confusion that has been created by the alteration to the law through the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 will have to be remedied.
In my area the local authorities are not prepared to go through the whole rigmarole of planning permission recognising that by canteens moving to another layby or, indeed, moving their position by a few hundred yards the whole cumbersome process would have to start again.
The Department must instruct its regional controllers to look at the road safety aspect of this situation, and the Minister should bear in mind that there are many people who provide the necessary services, paying their rates and complying with the food hygiene Acts, who are most disturbed about the way their business is being undercut.
In my area Mr. Daly, the planning officer, and Mr. Woodcock, his senior assistant, have been extremely helpful in presenting the facts to me. I really hope that the Minister will agree, having heard this case, to go to the Secretary of State and say that the present situation is totally

unsatisfactory and that he will have to have a careful look at it not only, I repeat, from the point of view of food hygiene but also from the point of view of road safety.

12.4 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John Horam): The hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Sir T. Kitson) has presented the case against roadside canteens eloquently and very thoroughly. Let me acknowledge at the outset that there is very considerable force in what he has had to say. Some mobile canteens—not all, but certainly some—produce or encourage the depositing of litter in laybys and on verges. The hygienic standards of some of them are very doubtful. Some—or their customers—damage the laybys and grass verges. Some may compete with transport cafes, or, at least, the proprietors of those cafes may think that there is competition and may contend that the competition is unfair because the canteen operator does not have to pay rates or rent.
Residents on or near trunk roads may also object to the presence of a canteen near their houses. That is one side of the picture which the hon. Gentleman has painted. To be fair, however—and the hon. Gentleman was fair—there is another side. Mobile canteens provide a service for the road user, as the hon. Gentleman indicated. If there were no need for such a service, there would be no canteens. I do not know how many hon. Members at some time or another may have paused at a roadside canteen to have a quick cup of tea and a sandwich before continuing their journey. In addition, of course, certain drivers take advantage of facilities of this sort and they are particularly useful to lorry drivers, who would be very bitter about any proposal to outlaw them in general.
Clearly, different people take different views about the utility of the roadside canteen. I suspect that some people from time to time take different views at different times and in different places. The staunch opponent of the mobile canteen within sight of his house may not be averse to patronising one for a cheap snack when travelling many miles away from home.
This leaves us in the desperate but not unusual position of knowing that what


we do or do not do will displease someone to some degree. I fear that I may displease the hon. Gentleman.
As the hon. Gentleman himself said, there are a number of conflicting responsibilities in this area between the planning authorities in the shape of the Department of the Environment and the highway authority in the shape of the Department of Transport. There is also the question of the conflict between local authorities, district councils and central Government. This is a complex area which we have to look at, but I can only answer this evening for the Department of Transport. Other authorities have responsibility which bears directly on some of the complaints about canteens, and we cannot interfere with their responsibilities.
The hon. Gentleman raised the question of hygienic standards. It is contended that there is a lack of proper washing-up facilities in canteens or that conditions are unhygienic in some other way. This is a matter for consideration under the Public Health Act powers. It is for the environmental health officer of the district council concerned to investigate and take such action as is necessary. I recognise, however, that the powers which exist with regard to hygiene are in some respects unsatisfactory. If that is the case, I shall draw it to the attention of the Department concerned. I am not entirely sure of the exact Department because it is not within the remit of the Department of Transport, but if there is cause for concern I shall pass it on to the proper Department for consideration.
If a canteen is operating without the planning permission which the law requires it to have, that is a matter for the local planning authority—again, the district council. It is for the planning authority to decide whether planning legislation is being infringed and whether an enforcement notice should be served upon the canteen operator.
Another complaint against mobile canteens is that no rates are paid on them. I understand that this is a difficult topic for the rating authority because, as the hon. Gentleman said, the authority does not necessarily want to encourage something by giving it the sanctity or the per-

manence of being rated when the authority disapproves of in this case the roadside canteen. There is also the problem that rates are a form of tax on fixed property and there would be difficulties about levying them on something moveable, particularly if it were moved from time to time.
Operators of mobile canteens pay no rent for the use of the land on which the canteens stand. Here we move into the area of matters for which my right hon. Friend is responsible as the highway authority for trunk roads. There is no power under which we can possibly approve of the stationing of a canteen on a trunk road and charge rent. The hon. Member may be interested to hear that the basis on which canteens are allowed to stand on trunk road land is known in the Department as "non-disapproval". That is not a very elegant phrase but it states, in the shape of a double negative, the complicated legal situation we face.
To enable my right hon. Friend to make charges, there would have to be legislation under which some form of licensing system operated. That would have some difficulties and probably is not what the hon. Gentleman is seeking, although I appreciate that he seeks a more satisfactory system of control than that which we have.
There is a complicated legal situation, to which the hon. Member has referred. He is right to say that this matter has been gone over before. In Committee, during what was to become the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, the then hon. Member for Ash-field, Mr. Marquand, put forward a new clause to prohibit roadside trading on trunk and principal roads. After discussion the clause was withdrawn, and the Government subsequently introduced in another place another clause which became Section 7 of the Act. That provides for the making by highway authorities of control orders to restrict trading alongside highways specified in those orders. But subsection (5)(f) specifically exempts from a control order the provision in a layby of facilities for the supply of refreshments to travellers.
Section 124 of the Highways Act 1959 enables a highway authority to serve notice on the person having control or possession of a structure, in this case a


mobile canteen, to remove the obstruction within the time specified in the notice. The highway authority can remove the structure and recover the cost of doing so after the expiration of one month from the date of the serving of the notice. That is the point the hon. Gentleman referred to when he put the Question to my right hon. Friend about the number of times this power had been used recently.
If a mobile canteen owner applies for planning permission in respect of a canteen on a trunk road layby, the planning authority notifies the Secretary of State, as the highway authority, under Article 11 of the Town and Country Planning General Development Order and it is open to him to give a direction under Article 10 restricting the grant of permission. It has been the policy until now that no direction is given unless there is a danger to other road users. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that this has, on the whole, been the broad direction of policy until now. In the absence of a direction, the local planning authority decides the application itself and the applicant has the usual right of appeal to the Secretary of State for the Environment in the event of a refusal or a conditional consent.

Sir T. Kitson: The question of danger is important. I mentioned that the North Riding police had objected strongly to the siting of a mobile canteen. There is no way in which—even in terms of private property—on a trunk road such as the A1 traffic is allowed to leave without a deceleration lane. With a mobile canteen servicing 100-plus lorries a day, these vehicles are pulling off without such a deceleration lane. The regional controller ought to make certain recommendations to the Department, because this would be totally unacceptable in other circumstances. When the police are objecting on road safety grounds, careful consideration should be given to the point and in such circumstances an objection should be made by the Department.

Mr. Horam: This point about danger is important. My right hon. Friend's attitude on the subject of mobile canteens on trunk roads is that they provide a useful service and ought to be tolerated, provided that they do not cause danger.
The hon. Member has put forward three further points. The first concerned the village of Burneston. There is evidence of a road safety problem there. Certainly the police have said that they believe this to be the case. If that is so, I shall certainly look at it in the light of the general criteria that we have for considering whether we should move against mobile canteens.
Earlier in his remarks the hon. Gentleman made the point that there appeared to be a dual standard in that the Department was not granting planning permission for service facilities of a general static kind while continuing to allow mobile canteens to exist. I should like to look into that matter as it affects the area to which he referred.

Sir T. Kitson: The hon. Gentlemen seemed to imply that I accepted the existence of mobile canteens. If they do not have the necessary lavatories and washing facilities, they cannot meet the hygiene requirements of the Public Health Act. I should not like the impression to go out that I accept mobile canteens as such.

Mr. Horam: No. I understand precisely the hon. Gentleman's position. I was saying that he accepts that the Department has allowed mobile canteens to exist, unless they clearly cause a road safety problem. In the instance referred to by the hon. Gentleman, I undertake to look at the evidence.
If there is any question of dual standards between not granting planning permission for service facilities and allowing mobile canteens to remain nearby, again I undertake to look into that matter. The hon. Gentleman referred to mobile canteens being moved on rapidly when they were tackled by authorities. That is another matter into which we should perhaps look.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman referred to the general legal complexities of the present situation following from the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act. Again, I shall certainly consider whether there are any gaps in the law which leave either the local authorities or the Department—in this instance possibly the Department of the Environment—in an unsatisfactory situation as regards what they can do. I undertake to look at


the road safety problems at Burneston. In addition, I shall look at the general legal position to see whether it is as unsatisfactory as the hon. Gentleman maintained in his speech. Obviously, the complexity of the matter is such that it cannot

be resolved in a short time. I should like time to look at it, and I undertake to do so.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned at eighteen minutes past Twelve o'clock.